LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


OF" 


0 


Class 


( 


THE 


SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 


EIGHT    HUNDRED    ANSWERS    TO    AS    MANY    QUESTIONS 

CONCERNING    THE    MOST    SCIENTIFIC 

REVOLUTION    OF    THE 

AGE. 


BY 


J.    I.    SWAJ^DEB,    A.   M.,   D.   D. 


V     OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY 

Of 


NEW  YORK: 
HUDSON  &   CO.,   PUBLISHERS, 

23  PARK  ROW. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in   the  year  1886,  by 

in  Me  ctfZce  o/  the  Librarian  of 
Congress  at  Washington,  D.  C. 


W.  C.  DUNN,  Printer  and  Electrotyper,  34  &  26  Vandewater  St.,  N.  Y. 


TO 

A.  WILFORD  HALL,  PH.  D.,  LL.  D., 
MY   ESTEEMED   FRIEND, 

TRIED  AND  TRUE, 

THROUGH   WHOSE 

VERY  VALUABLE  WRITINGS 
I  HAVE    BEEN  LED 

INTO 
GREATER  SCIENTIFIC  LIGHT, 

THIS  VOLUME 

is 
AFFECTIONATELY  DEDICATED 

BY 
THE  AUTHOR. 


PREFACE. 


IT  has  been  my  pleasure  to  examine  this  work  on  the 
Substantial  Philosophy,  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  S  wander,  and  it 
affords  me  much  pleasure  in  recommending  the  same 
to  all  who  are  interested  in  true  science.  The  book 
makes  no  pretensions  to  be  scientific  or  even  to  present 
the  scientific  department  of  the  Substantial  Philosophy 
in  any  other  than  a  popular  light. 

The  object  has  been  to  simplify  all  that  which 
would  be  intricate,  if  expressed  in  scientific  language, 
so  that  the  average  reader  will  be  able  to  grasp  the 
truths  of  this  Coming  Philosophy.  I,  therefore,  cor- 
dially recommend  the  careful  reading  of  this  work  as 
the  forerunner  of  many  additional  works  which  are  sure 
to  come  in  the  future.  Respectfully, 

HENRY  A.  MOTT,  PH.  D.,  LL.  D.,  F.  C.  S.,  ETC, 


1 58403 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE. 

Introductory 9 

Chapter  I.  The  Source  of  Being  ....      39 

"        II.  Material  Substance     ....       50 

"      III.  Immaterial  Forces      ....       59 

"       IV.     Cohesion 70 

"         V.     Magnetism 82 

"       VI.  Gravity       ..       ,  '      .         .         .         .       91 

"     VII.  Electricity          .,,      ....     103 

"    VIII.  Heat          v;      .         ....     114 

"       IX.  The  Nature  of  Light          .        .         .131 

"         X.  The  Nature  and  Phenomena  of  Sound     155 

"       XL     Life 219 

"     XII.     Death 245 

"    XIII.  Death's  Antidote        .        .        .         .255 

"    XIV.  The  Kesurrection  of  the  Dead    .         .     289 

"      XV.  Our  Future  State  and  Place                     316 


OTHER  AUTHORITIES  CONSULTED   AND   QUOTED. 

H.  A.  MOTT,  PH.  D.,  LL.  D. 

CHANCELLOR  J.  KOST,  M.  D.,  LL.  D. 

REV.  F.  HAMLIN,  D.  D.  PH.  D 

REV.  F.  A.  RAUCH,  PH.  D. 

REV.  J.  W.  NEVIN,  D.  D.,  LL.  D. 

PROF.  T.  G.  APPLE,  D.  D.,  LL.D. 

REVC  J.  H.  GOOD,  D.  D. 

CAPT.  R.  KELSO  CARTER,  A.  M. 

REV.  JOSEPH  COOK. 

PROF.  HENRY  DRUMMOND,  F.  R.  S.  E. 

REV.  HENRY  HARBAUGH,  D.  D. 

BISHOP  RANDOLPH  S.  FOSTER. 

REV.  MOSES  KIEFFER,  D.  D. 

ELD.  THOMAS  MUNNELL,  A.  M. 

PROF.  J.  W.  LOWBER,  A.  M.,  PH.  D. 

PRES.  I.  L.  KEPHART,  D.  D. 

PROF.  G.  R.  HAND,  A.  M. 

COL.  J.  M.  PATTON. 

J.  R.  HOFFBR,  ESQ. 

PROF.  H.  C.  Cox,  A.  M. 

REV.  JOSEPH  S.  VAN  DYKE,  D.  D. 


INTRODUCTORY. 


IN  offering  this  book  to  the  public,  the  author  neither 
admits  a  "felt  want "  on  his  own  part  nor  claims  it  on  be- 
half of  others.  Man's  deepest  wants  are  sometimes  unfelt. 
His  greatest  exigency  is  the  need  of  ability  to  feel  and 
acknowledge  his  neediness.  The  only  apology  that  ac- 
companies this  volume  is  a  statement  of  the  circum- 
stances under  which  it  was  called  into  existence.  The 
book  appears  in  answer  to  many  expressed  wishes  for 
something  of  the  kind.  These  expressions  \vere  mostly 
from  men  who  had  been  reading  the  "Problem  of 
Human  Life/'  and  the  other  voluminous  writings  of  Dr. 
Hall,  and  \vhose  minds  had  consequently  undergone  a 
radical  change  concerning  the  questions  of  which  those 
writings  treat.  Some  of  these  wishes  were  expressed  to 
the  author,  but  the  most  of  them  were  sent  directly  to 
headquarters  until  the  founder  of  Substantialism  ex- 
pressed his  desire  that  something  like  a  formulated 
reproduction  of  his  philosophy  might  be  undertaken,  and 
if  possible  completed  in  time  to  receive  his  approval  and 
benediction  before  he  should  be  called  to  smite  the 


10  THE   SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

waters  of  Jordan,  and  take  his  long  anticipated  journey 
to  the  substantial  glory  of  the  skies. 

Listening  to  these  expressed  wishes,  and  heeding  the 
earnest  requests  which  frequently  accompanied  them,  we 
took  our  pen  in  hand  and  applied  ourself  to  the  accom- 
plishment of  the  undertaking  with  whatever  fitness  a 
kind  Providence  had  given  us  for  the  work,  and  now, 
having  completed  the  volume,  with  its  defects,  and  also, 
as  we  trust,  with  some  merit  and  many  provocations  to  a 
more  thorough  investigation  of  the  subject  discussed,  we 
bow  before  the  footlights  of  our  intelligent  audience,  and 
assure  the  studious  and  patient  reader  that  if  he  will  take 
the  "  little  book "  and  "  eat  it  up/*  even  though  it 
should  "make  his  belly  bitter,"  it  will  be  "as  sweet  as 
honey  to  the  mouth  "  for  all  such  as  have  a  relish  for  the 
mellific  nectar  of  truth. 

It  is  not  the  primary  object  of  this  book  to  teach  in 
detail  the  many  positive  truths  of  science  and  religion 
which  enter  into  a  complete  academic  course  of  study  or 
college  curriculum,  but  to  suggest  some  general  outlines 
thereof,  as  well  as  some  new  departures  therefrom,  and 
to  assist  the  honest  student  in  "  learning  to  unlearn  " 
whatever  he  may  have  learned  amiss.  That  the  highway 
of  the  scientific  architect  is  strewn  with  the  rubbish  of 
worthless  theories,  is  an  assumption  whose  justification 
may  be  looked  for  in  the  following  pages.  In  presenting 
these  pages  to  the  public  the  author  disclaims  any  sym- 
pathy with  that  pessimistic  school  of  philosophers  known 
as  the  screech-owls  of  humanity.  And  yet  he  is  just  as 
unwilling  to  be  classed  with  those  credulous  optimists 
who  not  only  see  that  everything  in  nature  is  ordered  for 


INTRODUCTORY.  11 

the  best,  but  who  also  seem  to  act  upon  the  supposition 
that  the  most  popular  interpretation  of  nature's  forces 
and  phenomena  is  for  that  reason  the  most  reliable. 

It  is  also  due  to  all  parties  interested  that  we  announce 
candidly  and  publicly  that  this  work  lays  no  claim  to 
originality  on  the  part  of  the  author.  With  the  excep- 
tion of  the  last  four  chapters,  for  which  he  is  willing  to 
be  held  individually  responsible,  this  volume  is  an  at- 
tempted formulation  of  some  of  the  fundamental  truths 
of  the  Substantial  Philosophy,  founded  by  Dr.  A.  Wil- 
ford  Hall,  and  set  forth  in  his  "  Problem  of  Human 
Life,"  which  made  its  first  appearance  before  a  startled 
public  in  1878,  and  since  that  date  more  fully  explained 
and  advocated  by  himself,  and  to  some  extent  by  his 
coadjutors,  in  the  Microcosm)  until  very  recently,  when 
the  challenge  which  the  discussion  of  the  questions  in- 
volved was  tossed  into  the  /Scientific  Arena,  the  leading 
monthly  journal  of  this  country  devoted  to  a  bold 
investigation  of  current  philosophical  teachings  and  its 
bearing  upon  the  religious  thought  of  the  age. 

Whatever,  therefore,  this  volume  contains  of  original 
freshness  in  scientific  investigation  and  discovery,  and 
whatever  is  startling  in  its  stalwart  character  and  claims 
of  revolutionary  truth,  are  credited  to  others,  but  espec- 
ially to  that  earnest  investigator,  logical  reasoner,  inde- 
fatigable worker,  Christian  scientist,  and  scientific  revo- 
lutionist— Dr.  A.  Wilford  Hall — at  whose  apostolic  feet 
we  are  proud  to  place  this  little  book,  as  the  most  appro- 
priate expression  of  our  esteem  for  one  whom  we  have 
never  seen,  as  well  as  our  best  token  of  gratitude  to  him 
for  the  great  benefits  which  we  are  constantly  deriving 


12  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

from  his  rich  discoveries  of  laws  and  facts  in  nature, 
never  previously  even  dreamed  of  by  those  whose  great- 
est fidelity  to  truth  consisted  mainly  in  feeling  the  pop- 
ular scientific  pulse,  and  in  following  the  beaten  paths  of 
ancient  and  modern  scholasticism.  And  while  we  thus 
make  our  obeisance  to  our  venerable  and  beloved  teacher, 
we  are  fully  convinced,  through  what  we  know  by  cor- 
respondence and  otherwise  of  the  warm  pulsations  of  his 
Christian  heart,  that  he  will  readily  join  us  in  our 
further  pilgrimage  to  the  foot  of  the  throne  of  that  great 
"  Teacher  sent  from  God,"  to  acknowledge  Him  as  the 
personal  embodiment  of  all  truth,  as  well  as  the  fountain 
of  all  redeeming  life  and  love. 

Candor  compels  us  to  admit  also  that  this  book  has  not 
been  written  with  any  hope  of  benefiting  those  who  thirst 
and  search  for  the  volumes  of  popular  pulpiness  and  gush 
so  eagerly  devoured  by  the  indolent  hordes  of  sickly  sen- 
timentalists in  literature.  The  name  of  this  class  of 
readers  is  legion.  They  peruse  pages  with  a  pernicious 
habit  of  thoughtlessness;  and  their  morbid  stupidity  is 
more  alarming  than  wonderful.  It  indicates  an  effemi- 
nate tendency  of  the  age  when  the  popular  mind,  so 
inflated  with  the  sweetened  wind  of  fallacy  and  fiction, 
has  no  longer  any  considerable  relish  and  admiration  for 
those  facts  and  beauties  in  science  which  can  be  ascer- 
tained and  seen  only  through  the  process  of  laborious 
mental  effort.  It  is  because  the  general  mind  has  been 
educated  to  take  an  easy  surface  view  and  make  a  super- 
ficial search  for  the  cause  of  things,  that  stupendous  er- 
rors have  come  to  prevail  in  science.  When  truth  is  hard 
to  find,  error  is  a  convenient  substitute.  Thus  eminence 


INTRODUCTORY.  13 

is  made  easy,  and  some  men  become  pre-eminent  fools. 
In  science,  as  in  religion,  those  tenets  which  offer  an  easy 
and  superficial  explanation  should  be  looked  upon  with 
suspicion.  The  shallows  murmur  with  plausible  jargon 
while  the  silent  deeps  are  filled  with  stores  of  knowledge 
for  those  who  take  to  their  intellectual  diving-bells  and 
leap  after  the  hidden  wealth  which  is  never  found  float- 
ing upon  the  surface.  To  all  such  this  book  comes  greet- 
ing in  the  name  of  revolutionary  truth.  Its  mission  is 
to  renew  the  gage  of  battle  and  continue  the  issue  made 
by  Dr.  Hall  when  the  "Problem  of  Human  Life  "was 
thrown  into  the  arena  of  the  greatest  scientific  combat 
the  world  has  ever  witnessed. 

In  order  to  enable  the  reader  to  locate  any  point  upon 
which  he  may  be  in  darkness  or  in  doubt,  or  upon  which 
lie  may  wish  to  seek  for  further  light  from  the  founder 
of  this  philosophy,  the  catechetical  form  has  been 
adopted.  The  question  frequently  contains  the  answer 
in  the  form  of  an  interrogative  proposition.  The  truth 
also  frequently  cross-questions  itself  in  open  court,  and 
aims  to  answer  all  anticipated  objections  to  the  sound- 
ness of  its  premises  and  the  logic  of  its  arguments. 
Should  any  Substantialist  differ  from  the  author  at  any 
point  as  to  his  apprehension  of  Dr.  Hall's  teachings,  it  is 
hoped  that  the  criticisms  will  be  of  such  a  character,  and 
made  in  such  a  spirit,  as  to  bring  forth  ultimately  a  vol- 
ume whose  shoe's  latchet  this  first  attempt  at  formulating 
the  doctrines  of  the  Substantial  Philosophy  may  not  be 
worthy  to  unloose.  Furthermore,  if  it  should  appear 
that  in  some  minor  or  mooted  points  in  the  general  sys- 
tem we  differ  from  the  founder  of  the  philosophy,  it 


14  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

nrnst  be  kept  distinctly  in  mind  that  Dr.  Hall  never  ex- 
pected to  become  the  custodian  of  any  man's  conscience. 

In  the  following  chapters  there  is  one  fundamental 
question  at  issue.  In  the  study  of  the  work  this  ques- 
tion should  be  permitted  to  stand  out  in  bold  relief,  and 
kept  constantly  and  clearly  in  view,  that  the  merits  of 
the  discussion  may  be  seen  in  the  light  of  relevant  testi- 
mony and  judged  in  the  love  of  a  righteous  verdict. 

Too  many  cob-houses  in  science  are  built  upon  the  sand 
of  a  false  assumption.  What  is  that  false  assumption  ? 
That  all  substances  are  material — that  nothing  in  Nature 
has  an  entitative  existence  except  that  which  is  measur- 
able by  the  senses,  or  provable  by  mechanical  or  chem- 
ical tests.  Against  the  advocates  of  such  a  doctrine  we 
unite  with  Dr.  Hall  and  others  in  joining  an  uncompro- 
mising issue.  The  man  who  denies  the  existence  of  such 
incorporeal  substance  in  Nature,  and  the  individual  who, 
in  religion,  will  believe  only  that  which  he  can  compre- 
hend, are  half-brothers  in  the  broad  family  of  infidelity. 
In  order  to  state  this  cardinal  question  more  clearly,*  we 
prefer  to  paraphrase  the  language  of  one  before  whose 
superior  ability  we  do  ourself  the  honor  to  bow.  Is 
there  "an  objective,  real  and  spiritual  world,  or  sphere 
of  being  from  which  the  phenomenal  world  has  its  source, 
and  by  which  it  is  constantly  upheld  "?  Or,  being  trans- 
lated into  the  vernacular  of  Substantialism,  is  there  an 
order  of  invisible,  inaudible,  and  intangible  being  coex- 
tensive with  the  material  manifestations  of  God's  great 
universe?  To  be  or  not  to  be,  immaterially;  that  is  the 
very  material  question  now  challenging  the  attention  and 
*  Rev.  T.  G.  Apple,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  Lancaster,  Pa. 


INTRODUCTORY.  15 

respectful  consideration  of  intellectual  courage,  candor, 
and  common  sense.  If  there  is  such  a  world  of  being  in 
Nature,  is  it  substantial  without  being  material?  Upon 
this  recently  alleged  Gibraltar  in  philosophy  the  guns  of 
opposition  are  being  trained;  and  from  this  newly-an- 
nounced position  in  science  the  affirmative  artillery  is 
hurling  its  missiles  of  merited  destruction  and  death  upon 
whatsoever  worketh  an  abomination  or  maketh  a  lie  by 
clinging  to  the  superficial  manifestation  of  things  which 
are  seen  and  temporal,  and  denying  the  existence  of  those 
things  which  are  unseen  and  eternal.  Upon  this  point 
hang  all  the  law  and  the  prophets  of  true  philosophy, 
and  upon  this  same  point  it  is  proposed  to  hang  a  few  of 
the  false  prophets  as  a  merciful  warning  for  others  to  dis- 
continue their  adoration  before  the  traditional  gods  of 
such  materialistic  idolatry. 

Questions  concerning  the  laws  of  gravity,  magnetism, 
and  sound,  can  never  be  satisfactorily  settled  until  there 
is  a  more  manly  willingness  and  earnest  effort  to  look 
beneath  the  material  surface  in  search  of  certain  invisible 
entities  and  elementary  principles  not  generally  acknowl- 
edged in  the  superficial  and  contradictory  theories  of  the 
schools.  Back  of  all  theories  and  discussions  relating  to 
the  qualities,  properties,  and  phenomena  of  being,  is  the 
question  of  leing  in  itself  considered.  Toward  this 
fundamental  question,  the  honest  and  diligent  philoso- 
pher would  do  well  to  turn  his  most  unbiased  attention, 
if  he  would  emancipate  himself  from  the  tyranny  of 
traditional  theories,  and  triumph  gloriously  where  basic 
truth  unfolds  her  banner  and  gains  the  victory  with 
stubborn  and  substantial  facts. 


16  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

The  case  calls  for  rational  thought.  Is  it  unreasonable 
to  believe  that  there  is  an  order  of  being  beyond  the  com- 
prehension of  the  human  intellect?  If  so,  the  Christian 
religion  is  unreasonable  in  its  claims,  and  untrue  in  its 
nature.  The  apprehensible  is  not  always  comprehensi- 
ble. It  is  not  unreasonable  to  assume  the  existence  of 
immaterial  and  imperceivable  entities  not  found  in  the 
category  of  material  things,  and  whose  actual  being  can- 
not be  proven  by  any  chemical  or  mechanical  test. 
"When  an  unanswerable  array  of  observed  facts  demon' 
strates  conclusively  that  certain  acknowledged  effects 
cannot  possibly  be  produced  by  any  cause,  force,  or  en- 
ergy inherent  in  the  mere  material  world,  and  that  such 
effects  cannot  be  accounted  for  except  upon  the  hypothe- 
sis or  theory  that  there  is  an  immaterial  substance,  it  is 
unreasonable  to  deny  the  existence  of  such  substance. 
Materialistic  evolution,  including  the  advocacy  of  the 
wave-theory  of  sound,  makes  this  denial  in  the  very  face 
of  such  facts  and  effects.  It  is,  therefore,  unreasonable 
and  untrue.  If  religion  clearly  sees  and  understands  by 
the  things  that  are  made  that  there  are  invisible  things  of 
God  from  the  creation  of  the  world,  true  science  is  bound 
to  look  beneath  and  beyond  the  sphere  of  the  visible  in 
search  of  something  that  shall  prove  more  satisfactory  in 
solving  the  most  difficult  problems  of  the  age,  and  lead 
to  a  rational  rejection  of  those  infidel  theories  so  obstruct- 
ive to  the  progress  of  both  religion  and  science. 

Besides  the  general  tendency  toward  superficiality,  not 
only  among  the  masses,  but  also  in  educated  circles  of 
pretended  thoughtful  ness,  there  is  another  tendency 
equally  alarming,  viz:  to  divorce  science  from  religion. 


INTRODUCTORY.  1? 

This  sundering  of  the  two,  places  both  at  a  disadvantage 
.in  their  common  conflict  with  the  combined  forces  of 
ignorance  and  infidelity.  Confusion  is  taken  for  the 
rattle  of  God's  artillery,  and  the  din  of  home  strife  is 
foolishly  supposed  to  be  a  war  with  the  foreign  enemy. 
The  conflict  is  also  largely  a  battle  fought  with  imag- 
inary spooks  by  moonlight.  The  issue  is  not  clearly 
defined,  and  the  line  is  not  well  drawn.  Friends  are, 
therefore,  not  always  distinguished  from  foes.  It  will 
ever  be  thus  until  the  engagement  takes  place  under  the 
central  sun  of  the  universe.  The  Christ  of  God  is  that 
central  sun.  He  shines  through  "the  volume  of  the 
book,"  the  written  word,  and  also  through  the  volume  of 
nature,  the  demonstrated  word.  He  is  the  alpha  and 
omega  of  both,  as  well  as  the  entire  fullness  of  their 
inner  glory.  Revelation  and  science  are  a  comple- 
mentary twofoldness  of  the  same  thing.  Rightly  under- 
stood, there  is  no  contradiction.  Contradiction  is  the 
result  of  arbitary  separation,  and  the  effect  of  moonlight 
apprehension.  Christ  must  be  recognized  as  the  Sun  of 
the  universe,  and  the  key  to  the  full  and  final  solution  of 
all  its  mysteries.  In  Nature,  as  well  as  in  the  Bible, 
"  there  standeth  one  among  you  whom  ye  know  not." 
The  cardinal  mistake  is  made  in  taking  the  mere  archive 
of  Revelation  for  the  revelation  itself,  and  in  a  corre- 
sponding substitution  of  the  outward  material  form  of 
Nature  for  those  inward  immaterial  force-elements 
which  in  their  common  ground  of  union  constitute 
the  veritable  and  abiding  substance  of  a  volume 
no  less  canonical  than  the  received  scriptures  of  God. 
Bibleolatry  is  one  form  of  materialism  in  religion, 


18  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

and  materialism  in  science  is  a  worshiping  of  the 
letter  which  killeth.  The  one  searcheth  the  scrip- 
tural letter  thinking  that  therein  it  hath  eternal  life,  and 
the  other  looketh  into  the  motions  of  the  air  for  the 
fecundous  womb  of  sound.  Under  this  view,  both  relig- 
ion and  science  have  neither  genesis  nor  exodus.  Let 
there  be  light!  Let  all  be  seen  in  the  effulgence  of  Him 
who  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  this  grand 
world  and  glorious  periphery  of  truth.  Here  science 
appears  no  less  divine  than  Christianity — both  are 
answerable  to  their  common  archetypal  source.  Thus 
apprehended,  truth  gives  eternal  freedom,  and  opens  the 
pearly  portals  to  imperishable  glory. 

Viewing  the  subject  in  the  foregoing  light,  and  be' 
lieving  that  the  highest  mission  of  the  Substantial 
Philosophy  is  to  serve  in  the  temple  of  religion,  the 
author  not  only  felt  himself  justified,  but  also  impera- 
tively called  to  apply  its  fundamental  principle  to  Christ- 
ianity. The  result  of  his  response  to  such  a  call  is  the 
last  four  chapters  of  this  book,  which  may  be  regarded 
by  some  as  going  a  long  distance  to  find  a  market  for  his 
philosophic  merchandise.  While  we  concede  to  all  the 
freedom  to  think  upon  that  question  as  to  them  may 
seem  most  reasonable,  we  must  claim  for  ourself  the 
equal  privilege  to  follow  what  appeared  to  us  as  the  plain 
path  of  ,duty.  We  believe  that  the  Substantial  Phi- 
losophy is  thus  applicable  to  the  Christian  religion,  that 
Christianity  involves  philosophy  and  that  theology  must 
become  less  dogmatic  and  more  truly  scientific  before  it 
can  accomplish  its  full  mission  to  man  and  through  man 
in  brightening  the  visions  of  earth's  dark  night,  and  in 


INTRODUCTORY.  19 

sweetening  the  anticipations  of  heaven's  eternal  day. 
Schleiermacher  was  right  in  announcing  that  Chris- 
tianity as  to  its  essence  is  life,  and  Dr.  Hall  is  equally 
correct  in  proclaiming  all  life  to  be  substantial  force. 
The  religion  which  cometh  down  from  God  out  of  heaven 
does  not  hold  its  being  in  mere  abstract  truth,,  under  the 
form  of  doctrinal  tenets;  neither  does  it  move  forward  in 
the  chariot  of  human  logic,  as  though  man's  greatest 
want  were  the  liberation  of  his  intellect  from  the  thrall- 
dom  of  error.  Though  intimately  related,  the  Bible  is 
not  the  same  as  Christianity.  The  Bible  is  an  outward 
manifestation  of  an  inward  life — substantial  mystery  in 
sacred  history — principle  in  precept — law  in  statutorial 
form — truth  in  effluence — the  unimpeachable  testimony 
which  Christianity  gives  of  its  origin,  purposes,  opera- 
tions, and  conditions,  as  it  moves  on  through  the  ages, 
bearing  witness  to  the  truth.  The  Bible  can  testify  to 
the  truth  only  as  Christ,  the  absolute  fountain  of  eternal 
verity,  comes  "in  the  volume  of  the  book,"  to  animate 
its  paragraphs  and  illuminate  its  pages.  Truth,  under 
this  concrete  view,  is  inseparable  from  life.  Under  any 
opposite  view  it  is  truth  in  mere  abstraction.  Truth  in 
abstraction  (in  the  biological  domain  of  science)  is  prac- 
tically the  truth  held  hi  unrighteousness — a  perversion — 
a  lie — anti- Christ — a  virtual  denial  of  the  Incarnation  in 
its  proper  historical  sense,  and  a  cowardly  surrender  of 
the  only  key  by  which  intelligent  faith  may  hope  to  solve 
the  world's  most  momentous  problem,  the  destiny  of  man; 
It  has  been  intimated  from  certain  uncertain  sources 
that  the  vast  array  of  adverse  criticisms  upon  the  new 
doctrine  will  place  it  under  suspicion,  and  ultimately 


20  THE  SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

wipe  it  from  the  face  of  the  earth.  We  have  good  rea- 
sons for  thinking  differently.  Learned  criticism  has  al- 
ways been  adverse  to  the  truth  upon  the  first  appearance 
of  a  new  doctrine,  whether  in  religion  or  science.  We 
mention  the  faith  of  the  Hebrews  in  Egypt,  the  Gospel 
of  the  Nazarine  in  Judea,  Christianity  in  the  old  Roman 
Empire,  and  Evangelical  Protestantism  in  Europe,  as 
cardinal  points  in  the  religious  compass.  Similar  obser- 
vations may  be  made  in  the  respective  spheres  of  astron- 
omy, medicine,  philosophy,  and  every  other  department 
of  science.  And  yet  there  is  nothing  in  the  above-men- 
tioned examples  construable  into  an  indiscriminate  ap- 
proval of  every  ridiculous  vagary  that  could  possibly 
originate  in  the  cranky  caverns  of  a  diseased  brain. 

"  The  wisdom  of  the  world  is  foolishness  with  God  "; 
and  the  world  has  repeatedly  made  a  fool  of  itself  by 
rejecting  the  truth  for  no  other  reason  than  that  it  was 
paradoxical,  unpopular  and  destitute  of  "respectability/' 
We  concede  that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  a  probable  pre- 
ponderance of  popular  opinion  favoring  those  conclusions 
which  have  been  reached  through  the  intellectual  wealth 
and  wisdom  of  the  ages;  but  we  are  not  unmindful  of  the 
fact  that  the  accumulated  testimony  of  those  exceedingly 
wise  ages  has  frequently  done  very  little  more  than  to 
make  room  for  the  verdict  that  "  the  wisdom  of  the  world 
is  foolishness  with  God."  This  will  continue  to  be  the 
case  until  that  which  is  perfect  is  come.  As  long  as  the 
highway  of  history  is  strewn  with  the  fragments  of  shat- 
tered theories  and  exploded  orthodoxies,  even  the  crown- 
ing grace  of  Christian  charity  may  be  permitted  to  shrug 
her  comely  shoulders  with  consistent  hesitancy  before  she 


INTRODUCTORY.  2l 

"believeth  all  things"  and  "rejoiceth  in  the  truth." 
We  are  aware  that  persons  who  come  before  the  schools 
with  new  ideas,  and  with  the  courage  to  proclaim  them 
to  the  world,  take  their  own  risks  of  being  convicted  as 
fools;  but  it  does  not,  therefore,  necessarily  follow  that 
the  light  should  be  put  under  a  bushel  because  it  is  new, 
neither  does  it  follow  that  an  assumed  pharisaic  indefect- 
ability  on  the  part  of  the  scholastic  world  is  conclusive 
evidence  that  it  is  either  in  the  possession  of  truth  or  in 
the  practice  of  wisdom.  A  thorough  examination  and 
consideration  of  all  new  theories  is  a  duty  that  the  world 
owes  itself,  and  a  respect  that  should  never  be  withheld 
from  the  majesty  of  the  truth  which  has  frequently  been 
found  enshrined  in  its  most  seemingly  absurd  propositions. 
Talk  not  of  "  respectable  "  institutions  in  favor  of  this 
theory  or  that!  Histoty  is  full  of  proof  that  in  matters 
of  truth  and  right  God  and  a  few  others  constitute  a  very 
clear  and  respectable  majority  over  all  the  rest.  The  Ke- 
formers  were  branded  with  being  a  set  of  crazy  fanatics; 
Paul  was  charged  with  being  "  the  setter-forth  of  strange 
doctrines,"  a  "  babbler,"  and  a  "fool;"  and  Jesus  Christ 
was  condemned  as  an  innovator;  yet  they  were  all  in  the 
line  of  duty,  and  consequently  on  the  highway  to  that 
imperishable  glory  which  has  never  yet  been  reached,  ex- 
cept through  the  persecutions  of  the  majority.  The 
world  is  more  indebted  to  its  "  fools  "  than  to  its  cus- 
todians of  wisdom  for  the  progress  already  made  in  the 
right  direction.  What  would  be  its  condition  to-day  if 
all  its  paradoxes  had  been  strangled  in  their  birth  by  the 
midwives  and  high  priests  of  "regular"  and  "respect- 
able "  authority  in  matters  of  religion  and  science,  and 


22  THE   SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

all  its  so-called  innovators  had  been  crucified?  Nay, 
rather,  what  would  be  the  condition  of  the  world  if  some 
of  them  had  not  been  condemned  and  crucified  for  bear- 
ing testimony  to  paradoxical  truth  ?  Christianity  at  its 
introduction  was  the  most  paradoxical  movement  that 
ever  flew  into  the  face  of  an  accepted  order  of  things, 
and  it  is  still  doing  more  toward  revolutionizing  the  ven- 
erable fallacies  and  frauds  of  history  than  all  other  com- 
bined powers  of  our  polluted  planet. 

But  it  is  said  that  the  voice  of  the  people  is  the  voice 
of  God.  Nonsense!  God  has  not  said  so.  The  false 
proverb  is  the  production  of  the  people  blowing  their 
own  undulatory  horn.  Majorities  have  nearly  always 
been  on  the  wrong  side  of  the  question.  They  are  on 
the  wrong  side  of  all  great  questions  to-day.  Christianity 
is  in  the  minority  as  ever  against  the  religions  of  the 
world;  Protestantism  is  in  the  minority  as  measured  with 
the  aggregate  of  the  Catholic  millions;  and  it  is  quite 
possible  that  true  and  vitalized  protestants  are  in  the  mi- 
nority as  compared  with  the  number  of  nominal  protest- 
ants  who  hold  to  the  form  while  they  deny  the  real  power 
of  evangelical  godliness. 

This  feature  of  the  question,  then,  is  nothing  more 
than  a  renewal  of  the  old  interrogative  propounded  twenty- 
five  centuries  ago:  "  How  shall  Jacob  arise,  for  he  is 
small ?"  In  the  midst  of  man's  impotency,  God  steps 
upon  the  stage  and  answers  all  such  questions  for  all  time 
to  come,  and  for  his  everlasting  glory:  "Not  by  might, 
nor  by  power,"  but  by  the  dynamic  impulse  of  his  own 
substantial  self  in  history.  Who  can  read  history  aright 
without  seeing  this  truth  verified  in  every  chapter?  In 


INTRODUCTORY.  23 

no  sense  is  Substantialism  to  be  an  exception  to  the  gen- 
eral rule  which  has  prevailed  in  all  past  ages,  and  which 
will  ever  prevail  in  the  Church  and  in  the  world.  As  all 
heaven-born  principles  and  systems  of  truth  ever  an- 
nounced among  men  have  gradually  spread  toward  the 
sure  and  full  inheritance  of  the  earth,  so  shall  it  be  with 
the  system  of  philosophy  which  God  delighteth  to  honor. 
It  has  already  widened  its  bounds.  The  ratio  of  its  in- 
crease appears  as  something  more  remarkable  than  even 
the  array  of  opposition  which  has  been  blind  enough  to 
cross  its  brightening  pathway  to  beneficent  power.  Sub- 
stantialism has  now  been  before  the  world  for  only  a  few 
short  years,  and  yet  it  has  more  openly  avowed  followers 
than  had  either  Christ  or  Mahommed  after  a  public  pro- 
mulgation of  their  respective  doctrines  for  a  correspond- 
ing length  of  time. 

The  Substantial  Philosophy  did  not  originate  in  Dr. 
Hall's  brain.  Its  principles  and  fundamental  elements 
had  being  before  they  passed  into  the  laboratory  of  his 
grand  and  grappling  intellect,  and  constituted  him  the 
first  philosopher  of  the  world.  Just  as  the  Eeformation 
produced  the  Eeformers;  just  as  the  principles  of  popular 
freedom  produced  Washington  and  Jefferson  as  distin- 
guished actors  upon  the  stage  of  colonial  history,  so  did 
the  eternal  principle  of  Substantialism  lay  hold  of  its 
most  natural  selection,  and  use  him  as  an  active  medium 
through  which  to  appear  before  the  world  and  challenge 
the  consideration  of  honest  men.  Fact  is,  the  fullness  of 
time  was  here,  the  new  philosophy  was  ready  to  be  born, 
and  all  the  mercenary  midwives  of  materialistic  Egypt 
could  not  strangle  it  at  its  birth.  And  now,  since  it  has 


24  THE  SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

been  born,  although  it  may  be  kept  cradled  for  awhile 
among  the  bulrushes  of  popular  prejudice,  it  will  gain 
strength  as  a  proper  child,  and  finally  go  forth  to  lead 
the  world  from  the  bondage  of  scholastic  corruption  into 
its  own  higher  sphere  of  philosophic  truth  and  conse- 
quent freedom  in  the  promised  land. 

Having  such  a  high  origin,  there  is  no  room  to  doubt 
concerning  the  success  of  Substantialism  and  the  radical 
revolution  it  is  destined  to  accomplish  in  science.  It  is 
an  element  in  history  and  belongs  to  the  objective  con- 
stitution of  the  world's  historic  onflow.  History  has  a 
power  not  derived  from  the  agents  employed  in  its  un- 
folding process,  but  from  Him  who  is  above,  hi  story,  and 
whose  personal  being  has  no  history.  For  this  reason 
the  essential  features  of  all  great  world-movements  are 
fashioned,  not  only  after  an  inner  pattern,  but  also  by  an 
inner  plastic  power.  God  has  so  constituted  the  econ- 
omy of  the  universe  with  its  dynamic  force  and  unerring 
laws  as  to  secure  the  end  from  the  beginning.  Accord- 
ing to  this  view,  a  failure  of  the  divine  purpose  is  placed 
under  the  category  of  impossibilities.  Neither  can  there 
be  an  ultimate  failure  of  any  human  purpose  when  such 
purpose  moves  upon  a  line  parallel  with  that  of  the  di- 
vine. Truth  calls  great  minds  to  its  advocacy,  and 
through  them  it  asserts  its  own  mighty  power.  "  Ye 
have  not  chosen  me,  but  I  have  chosen  you  and  ordained 
you,"  is  the  language  of  the  personal  and  supreme  Truth. 
Christ  is  the  principle  of  all  normal  world-movements: 
other  actors  upon  the  stage  of  history,  though  not  pup- 
pets of  a  mock  drama,  are,  nevertheless,  agents  through 
whom  the  objective  forces  of  creation's  development  as- 


INTRODUCTORY.  25 

sert  themselves,  and  yet  in  such  a  way  as  that  each 
rational  agent  is  allowed  to  exercise  the  freedom  of  his 
own  will,  and  enabled  to  harvest  the  reward  of  his  own 
merit.  Assuming  the  correctness  of  the  foregoing  view, 
there  can  be  no  abortion  in  the  sphere  of  true  science  or 
sound  philosophy  any  more  than  there  can  be  a  failure  in 
the  primary  purpose  of  Almighty  God,  or  a  general  mis- 
carriage in  the  grand  design  of  Him  who  is  the  author 
and  finisher  of  the  Christian  faith.  Whatever  has  its 
incipient  being  in  the  fecundous  womb  of  eternal  truth 
will  come,  through  safe  and  certain  delivery,  to  a  legiti- 
mate and  timely  birth.  The  Substantial  Philosophy  can 
view  itself  in  no  other  light  without  stultification  and 
suicide.  It  has  proclaimed  from  the  high  tower  of  its 
strength  that  truth  is  a  veritable  essence,  that  substance 
is  before  matter,  that  the  mind,  instead  of  being  the 
function  of  the  brain,  uses  the  brain  as  its  organ.  To 
surrender  this  position  would  be  to  throw  our  excellent 
philosophy  to  the  dogs,  and  crown  materialism  as  both 
consistent  in  its  claims  and  triumphant  in  the  contro- 
versy which  is  now  shaking  the  very  heavens  of  honest, 
earnest  inquiry  and  thought. 

A  wrong  impression  prevails  in  certain  uninformed 
quarters  as  to  the  extent  of  the  discovery  involved  in  the 
Substantial  Philosophy.  It  is  supposed  by  some  to  be 
nothing  more  than  an  adventurous  assault  upon  the  wave- 
theory  of  sound.  How  inadequate  is  such  a  narrow  con- 
ception! As  well  attempt  to  confine  Newton's  great  dis- 
covery of  gravital  law  in  its  application  to  the  motion  of 
the  moon.  As  shown  in  the  body  of  this  volume,  Dr. 
Hall's  recently  discovered  and  announced  Philosophy 


26  THE   SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

of  Substantialism  is  broader  than  the  widest  range  that 
can  possibly  be  taken  in  the  discussion  of  the  sound  ques- 
tion. Substantialism  maintains  that  the  universe  in  its 
very  constitution  incorporates  certain  immaterial  elements 
of  force  which  are  as  real  as  the  material  objects  in  nat- 
ure and  no  less  possessed  of  actual  being  than  the  rocks 
of  the  earth  or  the  stars  of  heaven.  This  new  philoso- 
phy is  called  Substantialism  in  contradistinction  from 
Materialism  because  it  lays  the  primary  emphasis  upon 
the  immaterial  or  force  entities  in  God's  great  handiwork. 
This  emphasis  is  thus  placed  because  the  immaterially 
substantial  in  the  universe  is  held  to  be  the  motive  power 
that  drives  the  wheels  of  its  material  machinery.  Hence 
the  reversal  of  some  moss-covered  theories  in  science. 
Matter  cannot  produce  motion,  neither  can  molelecular 
motion  produce  an  entity  of  any  kind.  Light,  heat  or 
electricity  may  produce  motion,  but  cannot  be  the  pro- 
duct thereof.  The  brain  is  not  the  originator,  but  the 
organ  of  the  mind.  Sound  is  an  immaterial  substance, 
and,  like  every  other  force-element  in  nature,  asserts  it- 
self according  to  its  own  law  of  manifestation.  The 
invisible  things  of  God  are  clearly  seen  in  the  things 
which  do  appear.  Air- waves  can  produce  sound  no  more 
than  the  lengthening  of  the  shadow  of  the  Washington 
Monument  can  cause  the  setting  of  the  sun,  and  just  as 
little  as  the  crowing  of  the  cock  can  produce  the  twilight 
of  the  morning. 

The  broadness  of  the  principle  announced  and  the 
demonstrations  already  given  to  the  faculty  of  reason  of 
its  soundness,  to  say  nothing  of  the  destruction  already 
wrought  among  the  unscientific  Philistines  with  the  jaw- 


INTRODUCTORY.  27 

bone  of  their  own  materialistic  ass,  entitles  Substantial- 
ism  to  an  honorable  place  in  the  family  of  the  world's 
numerous  systems  of  philosophy.  And  whether  thus  rec- 
ognized or  rejected  the  eternal  truth  will  remain  the 
same,  and  in  its  dynamic  power  will  force  such  general 
recognition  in  the  near  future's  unfolding  years.  Strong 
in  the  revolutionary  work  already  accomplished,  it  will 
not  condescend  to  "bow  the  suppliant  knee  that  thrift 
may  follow  fawning;"  but,  standing  erect  in  the  majesty 
of  its  intrinsic  worth,  the  vigor  of  its  symmetrical  consti- 
tution, and  the  beauty  of  its  admirable  proportions,  it 
will  thunder  with  authority  at  the  feeble  gates  of  stub- 
born scholasticism,  until  the  learned  world  will  be  glad 
to  own  and  honor  and  utilize  the  only  system  of  philoso- 
phy that  can  strike  the  fetters  of  fallacy  from  its  limbs 
and  bring  it  to  the  light  and  liberty  of  a  more  enduring 
substance. 

Let  all  lovers  of  truth  who  are  willing  to  follow  its 
leadings  through  evil  as  well  as  good  report  not  do  them- 
selves the  great  wrong  to  conclude  that  Substantialism  is 
not  worthy  of  their  entire  confidence,  because,  forsooth, 
it  doth  not  yet  fully  appear  what  it  shall  be  when  that 
which  is  perfect  is  come.  Neither  should  the  increasing 
number  of  believers  in  the  Substantial  Philosophy  be  any 
less  enthusiastic  in  its  advocacy  because  it  has  not  yet 
been  fully  formulated.  The  time  is  fast  coming  when  its 
high  rank  in  the  family  of  philosophies  will  be  generally 
acknowledged,  and  when,  as  the  center  of  the  world's  ad- 
miration, the  royal  child  shall  receive  the  insignia  of  its 
intrinsic  worth.  Even  in  the  bulrushes  of  the  Nile  Moses 
was  a  " proper  child,"  and  therefore  the  coming  man  and 


28  THE   SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

lawgiver  for  a  nation  from  whom,  according  to  the  flesh, 
Christ  came.  And  Christ  himself,  instead  of  springing, 
like  a  full-fledged  mythical  Minerva  from  the  head  of 
Jupiter,  into  his  highest  attainable  perfection,  "  in- 
creased in  wisdom,  stature  and  favor  with  God  and 
man."  So,  too,  with  Christianity,  as  the  substantial 
presence  of  the  glorified  Christ  in  the  world.  He  is  a 
very  poor  reader  of  church  history,  and  a  very  shallow 
student  of  its  philosophy  who  sees  Christianity's  highest- 
attainable  perfection  either  in  primitive  religion,  the 
Church  of  Rome,  or  modern  Protestantism.  While  noth- 
ing can  transcend  the  limits  of  its  own  type  and  pattern, 
it  is  everywhere  God's  law  that  the  old  and  more  defect- 
ive develops  the  want  and  prepares  the  way  for  the  new 
and  more  perfect. 

This  general  truth  is  equally  applicable  to  our  excellent 
philosophy.  Its  embryonic  principle  was  always  present 
in  the  essential  constitution  of  being,  and  came  to  its 
birth  in  the  fullness  of  time.  Ifc  is  a  proper  and  promis- 
ing child;  and  although  it  is  not  yet  as  old  as  was  the 
child  Jesus  when  he  was  taken  up  into  the  doomed  tem- 
ple to  be  questioned  by  the  learned  representatives  of  an- 
other dispensation  which  was  fast  passing  away,  it  has 
increased  in  stature  and  in  favor  with  God  and  unpreju- 
diced man.  This  progress  it  has  made  in  the  face  of  an 
opposition,  and  under  the  reign  of  persecution  and  suf 
fering  not  worthy  to  be  compared  with  the  glory  that 
shall  be  revealed  in  the  symmetrical  strength  of  its  corn- 
ing manhood  and  the  triumphal  march  of  its  victorious 
future. 

The  future  of  the  Substantial  Philosophy  is  neither  a 


INTRODUCTORY.  29 

matter  of  prophesy  nor  conjecture.  It  is  something  to 
be  confidently  anticipated  according  to  the  dynamic 
life-force  of  history.  When  once  acquainted  with  the 
root  we  need  no  gift  of  prophecy  to  predict  both  the 
coming  and  the  quality  of  the  fruit.  The  form  and  the 
flavor  of  the  fruit  are  predetermined  by  the  norm  of  the 
root.  All  are  already  previously  nominated  in  the  bond. 
Only  to  a  limited  extent  are  such  qualities  and  properties 
subject  to  modification  by  environments.  Life  needs  no 
outward  mold  in  which  to  cast  its  statuary  or  shape  its 
bust — it  will  permit  no  such  foreign  interference  without 
a  protest.  All  life  constantly  struggles  toward  the  realiza- 
tion of  its  own  ideal.  Such  ideal  is  not  a  mere  subject- 
ive concept  in  mental  fancy,  but  a  veritable  objective 
and  substantial  pattern  of  the  thing  to  come  in  an  ex- 
ternalized form.  That  which  is  to  be  has  been,  and 
now  is  in  type.  Conformity  to  type  is  a  fundamental 
law  in  the  world's  proper  evolution.  This  law  is  as 
supreme  in  Nature  as  it  is  in  the  absolute  religion.  The 
Church  of  the  Middle  Ages  made  many  centuries  of 
ridiculous  ecclesiasticism  by  its  foolish  and  fruitless 
attempts  to  legislate  law  into  life  and  life  into  law. 
Much  of  our  statutory  Protestantism  and  galvanic  church- 
ism  is  doing  no  better.  Let  modern  theologians  and 
materialistic  mound-builders  in  philosophy  read  history 
aright  and  profit  by  its  examples.  Let  them  catch  a 
glimpse  of  the  power  of  the  world  to  come — already 
come — and  with  uncovered  heads  do  proper  homage  to 
the  invisible,  yet  substantial  forces,  which,  like  Moses  of 
old,  build  their  tabernacles  after  the  patterns  brought 
down  from  the  Mount  of  God.  When  the  recognition 


30  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

and  acknowledgment  of  such  invisible  forces  shall  be- 
come as  general  as  demanded  by  the  claims  of  truth, 
Substantialism  will  receive  an  ovation  worthy  of  the 
principle  it  involves  and  commensurate  with  the  blessing 
it  is  able  to  impart  to  the  family  of  man. 

What  a  broad  field  is  opening  for  the  display  of  its 
power  and  the  distribution  of  its  benefits  to  all  the  lovers 
of  truth!  Passing  through  the  wilderness  of  scholastic 
chemistry,  it  will  complete  its  thorough  examination  of 
the  present  theory  of  force  and  energy,  as  already  indi- 
cated and  pprtially  accomplished  in  this  book.  In  this 
line  of  inquiry  it  will  look  a  little  more  carefully  into  the 
chemical  laws  of  affinity,  cohesion,  and  repulsion,  and 
show  that  some  things  hitherto  treated  as  the  properties 
of  matter  are  really  the  proprietors  thereof.  Continuing 
its  well-begun  work  in  the  domain  of  physics,  it  will  per- 
fect the  new  theory  or  sound  and  formulate  its  truths  for 
the  general  instruction  of  the  laity  in  the  rudiments  of 
scientific  righteousness.  Entering  into  the  domain  of 
optics,  it  will  pour  new  rays  upon  the  subject  of  light, 
recall  Huygens  and  Newton  to  the  witness  stand,  and 
submit  a  few  questions  by  way  of  cross-examination  con- 
cerning corpuscular  emissions  of  luminous  matter,  ethe- 
real jelly,  and  the  undulatory  theory  in  general.  It  will 
also  examine  further  into  the  presumptuous  assumptions 
chat  gravity,  magnetism,  electricity  and  heat  are  not  sub- 
stantial entities  and  forces  of  nature.  Encouraged  with 
its  grand  achievements  in  the  lower  departments  of  being, 
it  will  direct  its  efforts  toward  heaven,  and  with  a  hush 
of  reverence,  standing  the  scientific  gates  ajar,  it  will 
enable  man  to  look  into  the  laboratory  of  Almighty  God, 


INTRODUCTORY.  31 

where  the  handiwork  of  the  visible  creation  is  made  of 
things  that  do  not  appear.  It  will  continue  to  march  its 
invincible  forces  into  the  realm  of  mind,  lay  peceable 
siege  to  the  capital  of  intellectual  empire,  climb  up  into 
the  highest  dome  of  finite  thought,  examine  more  thor- 
oughly the  substantial  structure  of  the  human  soul  and 
demonstrate  its  constitutional  power  to  survive  the  disso- 
lution of  its  material  environments.  Neither  shall  the 
pent-up  Utica  of  sublunary  things  contract  its  powers. 
Persevering  in  its  searches  to  find  out  all  that  science  can 
know  of  God,  it  will  conduct  its  disciples  up  into  the  ob- 
servatory of  the  skies,  and  direct  their  most  devout  ef- 
forts to  ascertain  the  place  of  the  more  immediate  pres- 
ence of  Him  who  evolves  the  stars  like  sparks  from  his 
own  substantial  being,  and  sends  them  as  scintillations 
of  his  personal  glory  around  the  central  throne  of  his 
boundless  empire. 

Not  for  one  moment  can  the  name  "philosophy"  in  its 
broadest  significance  be  consistently  withheld  from  the 
harmonious  collection  .of  facts,  phenomena  and  logical 
deductions  which  was  obliged  to  annihilate  some  univer- 
sally accepted  theories  of  science  in  order  to  lay  its  found- 
ation stone  on  solid  rock.  Ordinarily  such  a  collection 
of  facts,  phenomena  and  deductions,  depending  entirely 
upon  their  harmonious  consistency  for  acceptance,  might, 
in  best,  be  held  as  only  a  tentative  theory  or  tolerated 
hypothesis;  but  when  such  systematized  collection  or  ar- 
rangement is  found  not  only  entirely  congruous  in  ac- 
counting for  all  the  phenomena  involved,  but  which 
comes  before  the  public  with  the  scalps  of  old  theories 
strung  upon  the  girdle  of  its  strength,  nothing  but  edu- 


32  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

oated  ignorance  and  unpardonable  bigotry  will  refuse  its 
admission  into  the  family  of  philosophies. 

Such  recognition  is  sure  to  come.  Our  philosophy  has 
force  enough  in  its  vigorous  constitution  to  advance  itself 
into  favorable  acknowledgement.  Having  cleared  and 
secured  its  own  right-of-way  through  the  black  forests  of 
unscientific  fallacies,  and  having  engineered  the  building 
of  its  own  iron  road,  it  now  claims  to  be  the  trunk  line 
of  philosophic  truth.  Why  not?  Its  claims  are  no  more 
courageous  than  consistent.  Its  testimonials  are  found 
in  the  work  already  accomplished.  Not  only  has  the 
road  been  built  and  ballasted,  but  is  already  being  used 
in  shipping  rich  cargoes  of  newly  discovered  commodities 
to  all  the  established  stations  along  its  beneficent  route. 
Gentlemen,  don't  you  hear  the  mighty  thunderings  of  the 
invisible  engine  and  the  musical  rumblings  of  the  wheels 
of  Substantial  Commerce?  If  not,  the  fault  is  your  own. 
The  really  deaf  are  only  they  that  will  not  hear.  Do 
you  say  that  the  claims  of  the  new  philosophy  are  con- 
trary to  the  senses?  Then  show  your  consistency  by  pro- 
fessing your  infidelity  in  matters  of  religion.  No  man 
can  be  a  consistent  Christian  and  deny  the  veritable  ex- 
istence of  present  invisible  entities  in  the  veritable  and 
substantial  Kingdom  of  God  which  proclaims  itself  as 
really  at  hand.  Neither  can  any  man  be  a  philosopher  or 
scientist  worthy  of  a  place  in  the  bright  afternoon  of  the 
nineteenth  century  and  yet  deny  the  existence  of  corre- 
sponding, invisible  entities  in  the  Kingdom  of  Nature. 
Moreover,  the  objective  reality  of  religion  does  not  de- 
pend upon  the  testimony  of  the  senses  for  its  authentica- 
tion to  man's  inward  power  of  apppehension  and  ap- 


INTRODUCTORY.  33 

proval.  The  same  is  true  of  the  inward  and  real  con- 
stitution of  Nature.  In  science  as  in  Christianity,  we 
must  endure  as  seeing  the  invisible:  otherwise  our  theo- 
ries and  our  hopes  will  fail  to  survive  the  test  that  shall 
try  every  man's  work  of  what  sort  it  is.  Testimony  al- 
lowable and  valuable  in  the  lower  is  not  always  admissable 
in  the  higher  courts  by  the  wise  rules  and  rulings  of  the 
Superior  bench.  Therefore,  if  ia  the  absence  of  tactile 
touch,  or  chemical  test,  or  mechanical  demonstration  in 
proof  of  its  genuineness,  the  gospel  of  our  philosophy 
should  remain  hid,  it  is  hid  to  them  that  are  lost  in  the 
meshes  of  materialism;  in  whom  the  god  of  mere  matter 
hath  blinded  the  minds  of  them  which  believe  not  in  the 
invisible,  and  yet  most  fairly  and  fully  authenticated  en- 
tities of  the  universe. 

We  repeat,  therefore,  that  Substantialism  can  be  con- 
fined within  the  compass  of  an  hypothesis  no  more  than 
it  can  be  measured  by  the  definition  of  a  mere  science. 
It  is  a  philosophy — THE  philosophy  of  the  world  and  for 
the  world.  Its  primary  mission  is  to  deal  with  the  ques- 
tion of  being,  as  that  which  underlies  all  science,  and 
enters  into  all  philosophy.  That  which  Aristotle 
dreamed  of  as  the  "  first  philosophy/'  is,  in  these  last 
days,  to  be  studied  and  known  and  applied  as  the  phi- 
losophy of  the  absolute,  so  far  as  human  reason  may 
have  the  power  to  comprehend  the  absolute  in  its  deep 
impulses  and  in  the  ever-expanding  circles  of  its 
unlimited  domain.  This  bold  claim  must  not  be 
confounded  with  the  respective  claims  of  other  the- 
ories whose  fragments  strew  the  highway  of  all  past 
philosophic  research  and  inquiry.  Descartes,  in  his 


34  THE   SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

theory  of  substance,  thought  that  he  had  gotten  down 
to  the  bed-rock  of  truth;  yet,  with  all  the  vigor  of  an 
intellect  that  placed  him  in  advance  of  his  age,  he  barely 
penetrated  the  cuticle  of  the  question  which  he  at- 
tempted to  solve.  Besides,  the  fragmentary  truths  which 
he  did  announce  were  comparatively  of  no  lasting  ben- 
efit to  applied  and  practical  science.  His  lightning  was 
only  seen  in  its  flashes  above  the  clouds.  It  was  so 
vividly  brilliant  that  it  could  not  exist  in  closer  contact 
with  the  practical  affairs  of  the  earth.  Leibnitz  dreamed 
of  pre-existent  force,  thought  of  eternal  harmony  in  the 
universe,  projected  his  doctrine  of  substance,  and  formu- 
lated his  theory  of  the  monads.  Others  have  advanced 
different  theories,  runging  all  the  way  from  the  most 
ethereal  idealism  to  the  outward  material  crust  of  crea- 
tion, and  yet  there  is  nothing  upon  record  worthy  to  be 
compared  with  the  harmonious  collection  of  facts, 
phenomena,  and  logical  deductions  now  known  by  its 
founder  and  intelligent  friends,  and  soon  to  be  known 
and  read  of  all  unprejudiced  scholarly  men  as  The  Sub- 
stantial Philosophy. 

Why  should  the  heathen  rage,  and  the  people  imagine 
a  vain  thing,  because  God  in  his  providence  has  ef  taken 
the  wise  in  their  own  craftiness"  by  placing  a  king  upon 
the  holy  hill  of  science?  Is  it  not  time  for  the  star  to 
appear  above  the  birthplace  of  something  better  than  any- 
thing now  offered  in  the  Talmudic  traditions  of  scholastic 
materialism?  The  hitherto  dissatisfied  yearnings  and 
searchings  of  earnest  intellects  demand  something  better. 
The  glory  of  the  truth  calls  for  something  more  true  in 
many  of  the  prevailing  theories  of  men.  In  fact  the  di- 


INTRODUCTORY.  35 

versified  fields  of  science  require  nothing  short  of  a  holy 
catholic  philosophy,  just  as  really  as  the  diversified  fami- 
lies of  the  earth  and  the  divergent  races  of  men  need  a 
holy  catholic  religion  to  bring  them  convergingly  back 
to  their  original  moorings,  and  conduct  them  thence  to 
the  port  of  their  proper  destiny.  Substantialism  is  cath- 
olic in  its  constitution.  Its  catholicity  consists  in  its 
universal  adaptability  to  every  proper  department  of 
human  knowledge,  and  every  legitimate  inquiry  of  the 
human  mind  after  the  nature  of  things,  from  the  point 
where  they  originate  in  the  Personal  Author  of  their 
being  on  to  the  ultimate  goal  of  their  wisely  and  benefi- 
cently ordained  destiny.  Sustaining  this  relation  to  the 
absolute,  the  general,  and  the  ultimate,  no  narrow  lati- 
tude can  contract  its  powers.  It  is  for  science  and  for 
religion;  for  reason  and  for  faith;  for  time  and  for  eter- 
nity; for  the  solution  of  the  problem  of  human  life,  here 
and  hereafter.  In  reverential  imitation  of  the  Incarnate 
Truth,  its  mission  is  to  bless  all  the  nations  of  the  earth. 
Substantialism  is  not  merely  among,  but  above  other 
systems  of  philosophy.  As  such,  its  mission  is  to  correct 
the  faults  and  supply  the  wants  of  others.  They  are  in 
need  of  it.  Its  immaterial  corpuscular  emissions  will  un- 
stop the  ears  of  the  deaf,  and  the  scintillations  of  its  sub- 
stantial light  will  fall  as  healing  rays  upon  the  eyeballs 
of  the  blind.  Like  Joseph,  after  being  persecuted, 
stripped,  sold,  banished,  imprisoned,  tempted  and  slan- 
dered by  all  the  amorous  hags  in  Potiphar's  house,  it  will 
still  retain  its  virtue,  rise  by  its  own  invisible  force  of 
character  into  the  highest  place  of  earthly  power,  bind 
the  princes  of  scholasticism  at  pleasure,  teach  its  senators 


36  THE   SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

wisdom,  and  furnish  the  corn  of  truth  for  its  envious, 
famishing  and  beggarly  brothers. 

Moreover,  Substantialism  has  a  higher  mission  than 
merely  to  bring  other  theories  and  systems  out  of  the  ma- 
terialistic wilderness  in  which  for  more  than  forty  years 
they  have  murmured  and  meandered  in  their  fruitless  at- 
tempts to  reach  the  scientific  land  of  promise.  Its  face  is 
turned  toward  "the  Jerusalem  which  is  above."  Among 
all  the  vestal  virgins  that  wait  upon  the  Creator  in  the 
grand  temple  of  creation,  it  stands  nearest  to  the  most 
sacred  fires  that  burn  upon  the  holy  altar  of  the  Christian 
religion.  Its  last  scope  and  purpose,  as  well  as  its  great- 
est glory,  is  to  serve  in  the  "more  perfect  tabernacle  not 
made  with  hands."  Ministering  thus  in  the  sanctuary  of 
our  holy  religion,  it  will  demonstrate  in  every  prayer  and 
sermon  that  the  command  of  God  for  man  to  believe  in 
the  invisible  entities  and  verities  of  the  Gospel  is  no  ex- 
ception to  his  general  mandate  continually  uttered  and 
echoed  in  every  province  of  nature,  and  throughout  every 
realm  of  his  expansive  universe.  Serving  thus  at  the 
altar  of  the  Christian's  God,  the  Substantial  Philosophy 
sustains  a  more  immediate  and  intimate  relation  to  the 
"world  without  end,"  and  ministers  more  directly  and 
beneficially  to  the  deepest  wants  and  yearnings  of  the 
human  spirit,  than  anything  yet  offered  either  in  the  cur- 
rent teachings  of  science  or  the  prevailing  subjective  the- 
ories of  undulatory  religion.  It  is  able  to  show  by  "  many 
infallible  proofs,"  cited  from  every  province  of  creation, 
that  while  religion  is  above  rationalism  its  claims  are  no 
less  rational  than  divine.  No  wonder,  therefore,  that 
Substantialism  approaches  man  with  no  ordinary  power, 


THE 

INTRODUCTORY  IWIVERS1TY 
and  addresses  him  at  the  central  point  of  hi* being  where 
the  vital  and  connecting  link  of  his  personality  holds 
him  in  peculiar  and  blessed  relation  to  the  God  of  heaven 
and  the  imperishable  bliss  of  an  endless  hereafter.  This 
is  the  reason  why  thousands  are  either  standing  upon  the 
tip-toe  of  anxiety,  or  marshaling  into  line  at  the  first  tap- 
pings of  the  Substantial  drum.  This,  too,  is  the  reason 
why  the  new  philosophy  is  gathering  strength  and  march- 
ing forward  with  a  sweep  of  power  that  no  prejudice  can 
resist.  Let  the  good  work  go  forward  with  the  impetus 
of  its  own  constitutional  impulse,  accelerated  by  the  mo- 
mentum of  its  own  progress,  stimulated  by  the  benefi- 
cence of  its  own  achievements,  until  empty  idealism,  on 
the  one  hand,  and  bold  materialism,  upon  the  other,  shall 
burn  the  gods  of  their  ridiculous  idolatry,  and  hasten  to 
worship  with  admiration  and  respect  before  the  superla- 
tive truth  of  The  Substantial  Philosophy. 


The  Substantial  Philosophy. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE   SOUKCE   OF  BEI^G. 

QUESTION  1.     What  is  the  chief  end  of  the  universe? 

ANSWER.  The  glory  of  God  in  the  revelation  of  his 
character  to  the  rational  intelligences  thereof. 

Q.  2.     Who  made  all  things? 

A.  The  Infinite,  Personal  God,  of  whom  all  things 
testify. 

Q.  3.     Did  God  make  all  things  out  of  nothing? 

A.  Science  teaches » that  out  of  nothing,  nothing 
comes.  Ex  niliilo  nihilfit. 

Q.  4.     Out  of  what  did  God  make  or  create  all  things? 

A.  He  evolved,  or  created  all  things  from  Himself.* 

*  It  is  certain  that  no  substance  in  the  universe  can  be  anni- 
hilated, or  cease  to  exist,  however  often  it  may  change  its 
form,  and  it  is  equally  a  settled  and  indisputable  principle  of 
science,  that  no  substance,  corporeal  or  incorporeal,  can  come 
into  existence  or  be  created  out  of  nothing,  even  by  the  aid  of 
infinite  power.  I  am  aware  that  this  trenches  upon  one  of  the 
prominent  articles  of  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  held 
almost  sacredly  by  large  bodies  of  Christian  believers  in  this 
country  and  Europe.  But  there  are  certain  axiomatic  truths  so 
self -evidently  settled  even  in  the  very  roots  of  science,  that  to 
controvert  them  by  any  article  of  religious  belief  is  to  fly  into 
the  face  of  all  science,  and  unnecessarily  provoke  disparage- 
ment of  religion  itself,  in  the  minds  of  cultivated  scientific 
investigators.  Fortunately  for  religion,  however,  this  article  of 


40  THE  SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

Q.  5.  Does  not  such  teaching  confront  the  human 
mind  with  an  insuperable  difficulty? 

A.  This  doctrine  does  not  create  the  difficulty,  but 
recognizes  its  existence,  and  treats  it  in  a  manner  most 
in  harmony  with  both  reason  and  revelation. 

Q.  6.  How  can  the  conclusion  that  God  created  all 
things  from  himself  be  logically  reached? 

faith,  which  so  positively  teaches  that  God  created  all  things 
out  of  nothing,  is  not  even  claimed  by  its  framers  to  be  ex- 
pressly taught  in  the  sacred  Scriptures,  and,  I  may  add  my  own 
opinion,  not  even  by  any  fair  or  necessary  inference.  In  oppos- 
ing the  false  views  of  scientists,  and  their  per  versions  of  Nature's 
laws,  nothing  is  more  detrimental  to  success  than  incorporating 
into  such  opposing  arguments,  religious  hypotheses  utterly  un- 
tenable and  false  in  the  very  nature  of  things.  Let  us  admit 
all  that  is  rationally  and  necessarily  true  in  science,  and  it 
gives  us  an  infinitely  firmer  foothold  to  overthrow  the  temple 
of  the  Philistines,  without  killing  ourselves  in  the  operation,  as 
did  poor  Sampson. 

I  am  glad  to  agree  here  with  the  views  of  that  radical  and 
critical  thinker — the  Rev.  Joseph  Cook — as  I  do  upon  al- 
most all  questions; — though  I  have  been  forced  to  differ  from 
him  in  a  few  instances  which  have  been  frankly  pointed  out, 
and  which  I  trust  will  not  offend  that  great  scholar  and  Chris- 
tian scientist.  Upon  the  creation  of  the  universe  he  distinctly 
takes  issue  with  the  Westminster  Confession.  I  quote  a  single 
sentence: 

"  It  is  not  my  belief  that  everything  was  created  from  nothing, 
nor  do  the  authors  of  '  The  Unseen  Universe,'  perhaps  the  most 
suggestive  book  lately  published  on  these  intricate  themes,  af- 
firm that." — Lectures  on  Heredity,  p.  121. 

Then,  if  something  cannot  be  created  out  of  nothing,  whence 
came  this  material  universe?  Is  matter  eternal?  If  so,  there 
is  something  in  the  universe  coexistent  with,  and  consequently 
equal,  in  this  respect  to,  God  himself.  This  would  seem  to  be 
inadmissable  by  all  sincere  theists,  and  hence  matter,  in  the 
grosser  form  of  substance,  as  contradistinguished  from  the  in- 
corporeal substances  before  named,  from  which  probably  it  was 
derived,  need  not  to  have  been  eternal.  But  wherein,  asks  the 
reader,  would  lie  the  difference,  and  how  would  it  alter  the  case 


THE  SOURCE  OF  BEING.  41 

A.  There  is  no  logical  way  of  reaching  any  other  con- 
clusion. 

Q.  7.     How  do  you  reason  in  the  matter? 

A.  '  Creation  is  finite.  All  existent,  finite  things  had 
a  beginning.  That  which  had  a  beginning  must  have 


as  to  the  substantial  eternity  of  matter,  if  the  incorporeal  sub- 
stance, from  which  matter  in  its  grosser  form  has  come,  existed 
from  eternity  ?  It  would  not,  I  confess,  relieve  the  hypothesis 
of  its  inconsistency  in  the  slightest  degree,  except  to  resolve  all 
matter,  for  example,  first  into  Prof.  Crooke's  fourth  state,  or 
Dr.  Lockyers  single  elementary  substance,  then  into  the  grosser 
incorporeal  elements  of  nature,  in  their  various  forms,  such  as 
electricity,  gravitation,  magnetism  and  other  forces;  then  into 
the  higher  plane  of  incorporeal  substance  such  as  constitutes  the 
vital  and  mental  powers  of  the  organic  world;  finally  into  the 
substantial  elements  of  God's  own  eternal  being,  so  to  speak, 
out  of  which,  by  His  infinite  power  and  wisdom  He  might  have 
condensed  the  various  grades  of  substance  down  to  the  material 
world  itself.  This  would  constitute  God  himself  the  source 
from  whence  has  been  derived  universal  Nature,  and  answer 
both  the  scientist  and  the  Westminster  Confession.  I  fancy, 
however,  the  reader  is  shocked  at  this  idea,  and  exclaims: 
Pantheism !  But  I  believe  a  cool  and  careful  consideration  of 
the  whole  question  will  not  only  relieve  this  supposition  of  its 
apparently  shocking  character  of  pantheism,  but  will  show  it  to 
be  the  only  possible  or  consistent  method  of  harmonizing  the 
settled  and  axiomatic  truths  of  science  with  the  fundamental 
truth  of  religion — the  existence  of  a  personal  God  independent 
of,  and  superior  to  Nature,  while  also  maintaining  His  imma- 
nence in  Nature.  The  truth  is,  religious  philosophers  who  have 
undertaken  of  late  to  break  down  the  materialistic  theories  of 
advanced  scientists,  have  been  too  much  hampered  by  creed, 
or  else  too  fearful  of  trenching  upon  some  popular  religious 
notions  to  grapple  with  these  doctrines  effectively,  or  without 
converting  their  own  weapons  into  boomerangs.  The  hampered 
manner  in  which  some  recent  attacks  have  been  made  upon 
evolution,  for  example,  by  our  leading  clergymen,  is  suggestive 
of  the  failure  of  the  general  who  decided  rather  to  lose  the  bat- 
tle than  to  deviate  from  the  tactics  taught  him  in  the  military 
academy. — "  Problem  of  Human  Life,"  p.  32. 


42  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

started  from  that  which  was  in  the  beginning.  There- 
fore the  whole  creation  must  have  had  its  sole  origin  in 
that  which  is  not  finite,  in  the  Infinite — it  derived  its 
being  from  the  Infinite  One  who  had  no  beginning. 

Q.  8.  Does  not  such  reasoning  imply  and  require  of 
the  human  mind  the  full  solution  of  a  great  mystery? 

A.  It  implies,  and  reason  requires,  the  acceptance  of 
the  mystery. 

Q.  9.  Would  it  not  be  better  to  acknowledge  the  crea- 
tion of  all  things  out  of  nothing,  and  thus  eliminate  the 
element  of  mystery  from  the  problem  under  considera- 
tion? 

A.  The  mystery  involved  cannot  be  solved  or  disposed 
of  by  any  such  treatment  of  the  case. 

Q.  10.     Why  not? 

A.  Because  it  is  less  rational  to  suppose  and  more  dif- 
ficult to  conceive  that  all  things  were  evolved  out  of 
"nothing,"  created  out  of  "nothing,"  as  a  manufac- 
turing material,  than  to  hold  and  teach  in  harmony 
with  science  and  the  Bible  that  God  made  all  things  of 
something,  and  that  something-  from  Himself. 

Q.  11.     But  is  not  such  teaching  pantheistic? 

A.     It  is  not.     Pantheism*  so  blends   and  confounds 

*  No  true  philosopher  can  object  to  the  doctrine  of  universal 
substance  until  the  substance  of  the  Creator  is  proclaimed  to  be 
identical  with  the  substance  of  the  creature,  thus  making  God 
and  the  universe  substantially  one.  This  latter,  as  we  appre- 
hend it,  is  pantheism,  and  the  very  marrow  in  the  Spinozaen 
bone  of  contention.  And  yet  Spinoza  was  nearer  the  truth 
than  some  modern  philosophers  who  are  continually  putting 
asunder  what  God  has  joined  together.  It  is  quite  probable 
that  Spinoza  sought  to  correct  that  old  heresy  of  dualism  which 
had  been  hatched  from  the  false  conception  of  two  primordial 
principles — mind  and  matter — in  eternal  conflict.  Intent  upon 
such  reconciliation,  and  unmindful  of  danger  in  the  opposite 
direction,  he  fell  into  the  vortex  of  pantheism.  This  is  just 
what  Wilford  Hall  cannot  do  without  violating  all  the  laws  of 


THE  SOURCE  OF  BEING.  43 

the  Creator  with  creation  as  to  ignore  the  proper  distinc- 
tion between  the  two.  Besides,  even  such  monstrous 
pantheism  would  seem  less  ridiculous  to  a  truly  rational 
and  religious  mind  than  the  nonsensical  theory  which 
represents  God  as  taking  a  piece  of  "nothing"  into  his 
infinite  laboratory  and  there  proceeding  to  place  the 
aforesaid  material  upon  the  anvil  of  this  Omnipotence, 
and  hammer  all  the  starry  worlds  therefrom,  like  sparks 
into  material  being. 

Q.  12.  But  would  it  not  be  better  to  leave  science  to 
solve  its  own  problems,  and  follow  revelation  exclusively 
in  a  matter  of  this  kind? 

A.  If  science  cannot  assist  us  in  attaining  to  a  more 
correct  interpretation  of  the  Bible,  it  has  no  proper  mis- 
sion among  men,  and  is  falsely  so  called. 

Q.  13.  But  did  not  God  reveal  the  truth  in  the  Bible 
so  far  as  it  is  proper  and  possible  for  man  to  know  any- 
thing concerning  the  genesis  of  being? 

A.  God  indeed  made  known  his  ways  unto  Moses,  but 
the  great  scribe  and  lawgiver  nowhere  represents  Him  as 
having  created  the  world  out  of  nothing. 

Q.  14..  Is  not  such  teaching  found  in  some  of  the  con- 
fessions and  catechisms  of  Christendom? 

consistency  and  rules  of  logic.  If  there  is  any  danger  it  is  in 
the  direction  of  dualism,  and  its  imminence  is  not  yet  very 
apparent.  While  he  recognizes  the  dual  structure  of  man  as 
the  microcosm  of  Nature,  and  distinguishes  between  the  cor- 
poreal and  incorporeal  entities  of  the  universe,  he  is  both  con- 
scientious and  consistent  in  proclaiming  the  one  personal  God' 
as  the  fountain  of  all,  over  all,  in  all,  and  yet  distinct  from  all. 
If  this  is  pantheism,  we  propose  to  "  run  into  "  it  as  far  as  our 
holiest  ambition  will  permit  us  to  go;  and  still  we  expect  to 
keep  close  company  with  the  most  biblical  Christians  of  all 
ages.  But  it  is  not  pantheism,  and  those  who  are  trying  to 
kindle  their  censorial  fires  to  burn  such  heretics  had  better  save 
their  fuel  and  make  a  liftle  effort  to  thaw  the  alarming  frigid- 
ty  out  of  their  own  theological  dormitories. 


44  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

A.  It  is  so  taught,  but  the  Church  has  not  yet  been 
freed  from  all  error  and  led  into  all  truth. 

Q.  15.  When  will  the  Ch \irch  attain  to  such  infalli- 
bility in  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible? 

A.  Not  until  she  has  a  more  reasonable  recognition 
of  the  Fountain,  forces  and  facts  of  the  universe. 

Q.  16.  Is  such  a  desirable  state  to  be  attained  with- 
out the  aid  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  spoken  of  and  promised 
in  the  Bible? 

A.  !Not  at  all.  Yet  the  Holy  Ghost  is  "  the  Spirit  of 
truth/5  and  teaches  more  valuable  lessons  in  true  science 
than  in  false  theology. 

Q.  17.  What  system  of  philosophy  now  holds  and 
teaches  this  true  and  tenable  view  of  the  origin  of  all 
things? 

A.     Substantialism. 

Q.  18.  Does  Substantialism  undertake  to  prove  the 
existence  of  an  Infinite  God  ? 

A.  True  science,  like  the  Bible,  assumes  the  existence 
of  the  personal  Infinite,  and  then,  like  the  Scriptures, 
proceeds  to  denounce  and  demonstrate  as  a  "  fool " 
(Psalm  xiv.  1)  the  man  who  calls  the  existence  of  such  a 
being  into  question. 

Q.  19.     Why  is  such  a  man  a  fool? 
A.     Because  he  is  destitute  of  that  without  which  man 
is  not  man. 

Q.  20.  What  is  that  which  is  so  essential  to  the  con- 
stitution of  true  humanity? 

A.  The  Divine  image,  and  the  consequent  God-con- 
sciousness. 

Q.  21.  What  do  you  mean  by  the  God-consciousness 
in  man? 

A.  The  innate  idea,  or  proclamation  of  the  human 
soul  that  there  is  a  God. 


THE   SOURCE   OF  BEING.  45 

Q.  22.     Is  this  feeling  universal? 

A.  It  is  general.  Creation  has  its  moral  as  well  as 
its  physical  monstrosities. 

Q.  23.     What  is  a  monstrosity? 

A.  An  unusual  production;  that  which  is  monstrously 
out  of  the  common  order  of  things. 

Q.  24.  What  is  the  cause  of  monstrosities  in  the 
human  race? 

A.  Moral  monstrosities  are  the  extreme  results  of 
moral  separation  from  God.  See  chapter  on  Death. 

0.  25.  Is  the  innate  God-consciousness  full  and  satis- 
factory evidence  to  rational  beings  that  there  is  a  God? 

A.  The  inward  is  complemented  and  corroborated  by 
the  outward. 

Q.  26.     Does  true  science  tend  to  show  this? 

A.  Science  has  no  higher  mission  than  to  hold  forth 
the  great  truth  that  "the  invisible  things  from  the  crea- 
tion of  the  world  are  clearly  seen  through  the  things 
that  are  made — even  his  eternal  power  and  Godhead." 

Q.  27.  Does  Substantialism,  then,  teach  that  God  is 
the  only  and  infinite  source  of  all  things,  and  that  he  is 
manifested  in  all  things? 

A.  It  not  only  holds  and  teaches  this  truth,  but  also 
sets  it  forth  and  demonstrates  it  in  a  manner  and  by  ar- 
guments entirely  different  from  anything  hitherto  known 
to  science.  It  is  now  possible  to  see  as  never  before  in 
philosophy,  that  "by  Him  are  all  things,"  and  "that 
which  may  be  known  of  God  is  manifest  in  them." 

Q.  28.  What  has  been  wrong  with  the  most  influential 
philosophy  of  the  world  that  it  could  not  occupy  the 
vantage-ground  recently  taken  and  now  held  by  Substan- 
tialism? 

A.  It  started  in  a  materialistic  conception  of  being, 
and  moved  in  a  materialistic  trend  of  reasoning,  until  the 
learned  world  has  been  led  either  to  believe  an  unscien- 


46  THE   SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

tific  lie,  or  stultify  itself  by  denying  the  conclusions  of 
its  own  logic. 

Q.  29.  What  is  now  the  trileinma  confronting  the 
modern  materialistic  philosopher  and  all  scientists  who 
accept  not  the  truth  and  obey  not  the  gospel  of  Substan- 
tialism  ? 

A.  They  are  compelled  to  yield  an  unwilling  assent 
to  the  substantial  existence  of  God  as  the  only  source  of 
all  things;  acknowledge  that  all  things  were  created  out 
of  nothing,  manipulated  by  a  being  who  has  no  substan- 
tial existence,  or  admit  the  eternity  of  matter. 

Q.  30.  Thus  confronted,  how  do  they  exercise  the 
power  of  choice? 

A.  Some,  with  mincing  daintiness,  take  hold  of  the 
first  horn,  and  then  try  to  deny  that  God  has  a  substan- 
tial being  in  any  real  substantial  sens§.  They  argue  that 
because  God  is  a  spirit  his  essence  cannot  partake  of  the 
nature  of  substance.  It  is  impossible  to  follow  these 
ethereal  philosophers,  as  they  immediately  soar  away 
through  their  own  spiritual  skies  to  find  refuge  behind 
the  plea  of  "mystery"  and  false  reverence  for  their  un- 
substantial God. 

Q.  31.  What  does  the  second  class  of  anti-substantial- 
ists  do  when  caught  in  the  meshes  of  this  trilemma? 

A.  They  choose  the  creation-out-of-nothing  theory, 
creep  into  the  second  horn,  and  come  out  at  the  little 
end,  advocating  as  their  authority  the  confessions  of  the 
Church,  while  they  lay  great  stress  upon  the  omnipotence 
of  their  unsubstantial  God,  and  of  his  alleged  consequent 
ability  to  do  the  most  unnecessary  and  ridiculous  thing 
that  false  philosophy  could  conceive  of. 

Q.  32.     How  about  the  third  class? 

A.  They  are  atheists,  either  from  the  start  or  from 
the  force  of  their  own  reasoning  in  the  premises.  They 
are  frequently  men  of  great  intellects,  and  honest  enough 


THE  SOURCE  OF  BEING.  47 

to  follow  their  own  logic  to  its  ultimate  conclusions. 
They  start  with  the  eternity  of  matter,  and  deny  that 
there  is  anything  more  than  matter  and  its  supposed  phe- 
nomena in  the  universe. 

Q.  33.  What  conclusion  is  reached  through  the  in- 
ductions of  the  philosophy  of  this  third  class? 

A.     The  evolution  theory. 

Q.  34.     What  does  the  evolution  theory  involve? 

A.  That  matter,  starting  in  the  moneron  or  in  a  less 
organic  state,  finally  reaches  its  highest  possible  form  of 
organic  being  in  man,  and  that  mind  is  nothing  more 
than  phenomena  or  molecular  motion. 

Q.  35.  Does  Substantialism  claim  that  mind  is  sub- 
stance? 

A.  That  is  just  what  Substantialism  teaches  concern- 
ing mind  and  all  other  forces  in  nature. 

Q.  36.     What  is  meant  by  the  forces  of  nature? 

A.  Those  invisible  entities  which,  under  God,  uphold 
and  move  the  universe  toward  its  final  goal. 

Q.  37      Name  some  of  these  forces. 

A.  Cohesion,  magnetism,  electricity,  gravity,  heat, 
light,  sound,  life,  mind,  spirit.  They  will  each  receive 
attention  at  the  proper  time  in  detail. 

Q.  38.    But  is  not  matter  also  a  force? 

A.  Matter  has  no  force  whatever.  It  may  even  be 
questioned  whether  matter  could  have  an  existence  in 
the  withdrawal  and  absence  of  all  the  physical  forces  by 
which  it  is  now  constantly  permeated,  reconstructed  and 
made  to  occupy  its  place  and  serve  its  purpose  in  the 
scale  of  being. 

Q.  39.  Does  not  matter  possess  the  possibility  of  self- 
action?* 

*  This  materialistic  theory  that  molecules  and  their  inherent 
motion  constitute  all  there  is  in  a  living  body,  is  one  of  the  most 
mischievous,  as  well  as  one  of  the  weakest,  doctrines  ever  taught 


48  THE   SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

A.  It  possesses  no  such  possibility  whatever.  It  can- 
not act  upon  itself,  neither  can  it  act  upon  or  produce 
that  which  is  not  itself. 

Q.  40.  Is  there  nothing  in  the  favorable  attitude  or 
combination  of  the  different  molecules  in  a  lump  of  mat- 
ter that  can  generate  molecular  motion? 

A.     Substantialism  denies  the  miserable  assumption. 

Q.  41.  But  may  not  a  mechanical  power  be  brought 
to  bear  upon  matter  so  as  to  jostle  its  molecules  into 
action  and  thus  produce  an  immaterial  force  per  se9 


for  science.  The  very  notion  that  the  ultimate  material  mole- 
cules of  a  body  are  normally  separated  hundreds  of  times  their 
diameters  apart,  and  that  they  are  inherently  in  ceaseless  mo- 
tion, flying  hither  and  thither,  without  some  real  and  substantial 
force  filling  the  spaces  between  them,  as  the  medium  of  motion 
or  the  cause  of  such  movements,  is  so  puerile  and  irrational  a 
supposition  that  it  is  simply  inconceivable  how  physicists  of 
sufficient  intellectual  capacity  to  conduct  a  scientific  experiment 
could  have  fallen  into  it,  much  less  have  been  satisfied  with  it 
after  it  had  been  adopted.  Let  us  illustrate: 

Had  the  inventor  of  the  molecular  theory  chanced  to  see  a 
simple  enlargement  of  his  idea  exhibited  by  some  ingenious 
mechanic,  in  the  shape  of  a  thousand  cannon  balls  flying  with 
an  enormous  velocity  hither  and  thither,  criss-cross,  and  every 
way  throughout  a  ten-acre  field,  at  the  same  time  constantly 
clashing  with  each  other  and  glancing  off  in  new  directions,  but 
with  no  let-up  to  their  pell-mell  bombardment,  is  it  supposable 
for  one  moment  that,  as  an  intelligent  investigator,  he  would 
not  have  suspected  that  such  movements  in  inert  material 
masses  must  of  necessity  be  produced  by  some  substantial  energy- 
producing  cause,  such  as  that  of  compressed  air,  steam,  gun- 
powder, tensioned  springs,  or  other  source  of  adequate  me- 
chanical power?  Would  he.  with  less  logical  intuition  and 
acumen  than  the  most  untutored  savage,  look  on  at  such  a 
marvelous  exhibition  of  mechanical  energy  and  skill,  and  with- 
out even  a  grunt  of  reflective  inquiry,  not  suspect  that  an  in- 
visible but  substantial  cause,  as  real  as  the  cannon  balls  them- 
selves, was  doing  all  this  work  of  hurling  them  with  such  force 


THE  SOURCE  OF  DEING,  49 

A.  None  but  the  unscientific  heathen  have  believed 
and  taught  such  nonsense! 

Q.  42.     What  will  become  of  them? 

A.  Since  Substantialism  has  made  its  appearance, 
giving  them  a  "  second  probation,"  they  must  now  re- 
pent of  their  false  theories  or  find  themselves  scientific- 
ally damned. 

and  velocity,  and  without  which  it  would  have  been  impossible 
for  them  to  move  at  all  ? 

It  seems  to  us  that  a  child  old  enough  to  walk  would  suspect, 
on  seeing  an  exhibition  of  this  kind,  that  some  power  would  be 
•  necessary,  even  if  invisible,  to  produce  such  wonderful  physical 
results,  and  at  the  same  time  that  such  motions,  in  the  nature  of 
things,  cannot  be  the  power  or  energy  which  produces  them! 
Yet  the  originator  of  the  molecular  theory  simply  pushed  this 
very  exhibition  of  cannon  balls  so  far  back  into  the  invisible  as 
to  satisfy  his  intellect  that  the  reduced  missiles,  which  he  now 
terms  molecules  and  atoms  (just  as  inert  and  incapable  of  mov- 
ing themselves  or  of  being  moved  without  adequate  force  as 
would  be  cannon  balls  or  even  mountains),  actually  propel 
themselves  without  any  substantial  cause,  or  else  that  they  gen- 
erate, by  their  motion,  the  very  force  by  which  the  motion  is 
produced  /—Dr.  Hall,  in  Mic.  Vol.  V.,  p.  199. 


CHAPTER  II. 

MATERIAL    SUBSTANCE. 

QUESTION  1.  What  general  term  does  true  science 
use  in  denominating  the  entities  of  creation? 

ANSWER.     Substance. 

Q.  2.     How  are  substances  in  general  classified? 

A.     Into  corporeal  and  incorporeal  substances. 

Q.  3.     What  are  corporeal  substances  called? 

A.     Matter. 

Q.  4.     Whence  is  matter  derived? 

A.  It  was  produced  from  the  one  primordial  sub- 
stance which  pervades  all  space. 

Q.  5.     Who  produced  it? 

A.  The  Infinite,  Personal  God — the  fountain  and 
source  of  all  normal  things,  tangible  or  intangible. 

Q.  6.  What  is  usually  meant  by  the  tangibility  of 
matter? 

A.  Its  ability  to  be  seen,  felt  or  otherwise  touched 
through  one  or  more  of  the  lower  organs  of  sense. 

Q.  7.     What  is  the  normal  or  natural  state  of  matter? 

A.     The  solid.* 

*  According  to  the  Substantial  Philosophy  matter  is  considered 
to  be  perfectly  homogeneous.  A  mass  of  matter  may  have 
porosity,  but  the  matter  itself  is  homogeneous. 

When  a  mass  of  matter  is  expanded  by  the  application  of 
heat,  every  particle  (so  to  speak)  expands — a  grain  or  the  million 
million  millionth  part  or  any  further  millionth  part  of  a  grain  of 


MATERIAL  SUBSTANCE.  51 

Q.  8.  It  is  generally  held  and  extensively  admitted 
that  the  earth  was  formerly  in  a  fluid  state.  Revelation 
also  teaches  that  the  earth  was  founded  upon  the  seas 
and  established  upon  the  floods.  How  then  can  it  be 
scientifically  and  consistently  held  that  the  solid  is  the 
normal  condition  of  matter? 

A.  If  matter  was  originally  in  the  fluid  state,  it  was 
then  only  in  the  process  toward  its  present  solid  and 
normal  condition:  just  as  normal  manhood  is  attained 
through  the  processive  age  of  childhood. 

matter  expands  just  as  we  see  one  pound  or  one  ton  expand. 
The  expansion  is  not  due  to  the  separation  of  the  particles  farther 
apart,  but  to  the  expansion  of  every  particle  as  the  mass  is  seen 
to  expand.  A  gas  is  simply  a  highly  attenuated  condition  of  any 
particular  form  of  matter,  and  depends  for  its  existence  on  the 
temperature  of  the  medium  in  which  it  is  found.  The  normal 
condition  of  all  the  elements  and  their  compounds  is  the  solid, 
and  this  view  was  first  pointed  out  by  Dr.  A.  Wilford  Hall.  It 
is  on  account  of  the  presence  of  the  substantial  heat-force,  in 
different  degrees,  which  determines  whether  an  element  or  its 
compounds  can  exist  as  a  liquid  or  a  gas.  Deprive  a  liquid  or 
gas  of  its  heat  and  the  result  is  a  solid.  Experiment  has  shown 
that  if  any  of  the  gaseous  elements,  which  exist  as  such  at  the 
average  temperature,  be  subjected  to  pressure  and  deprived  of 
some  of  their  heat,  they  will  condense  to  a  liquid,  which  can  be 
poured  from  one  vessel  to  another.  The  gaseous  and  liquid 
states  of  matter  are  forced  conditions,  and  depend  for  their  ex- 
istence on  the  temperature  of  the  medium  in  which  they  exist. 

As  the  word  "  particle "  will  be  used  frequently  during  the 
course  of  this  article,  it  is  best  to  understand  what  is  meant  by 
it  when  used  in  connection  with  the  Substantial  Philosophy. 

A  particle  of  matter  is  a  small  mass  of  matter  which  is  capa- 
ble of  being  divided  into  smaller  particles,  these  into  still  smaller 
particles,  and  so  on  ad  infinitum.  In  other  words,  according  to 
the  Subsl  antial  Philosophy,  matter  is  subject  to  infinite  divisi- 
bility. 

With  these  brief  remarks  let  us  proceed  to  consider  such  argu- 
ments as  have  been  advanced  to  show  that  matter  is  heteroge- 
neous and  not  homogeneous.— H.  A.  Mott,  LL.  D.,  Microcosm, 
Vol.  V.,  p.  103, 


52  THE   SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

Q.  9.  But  is  not  childhood  a  normal  condition  of 
humanity? 

A.  It  is  only  the  normal  process  by  which  the  perfect 
stature  of  manhood  is  reached.  Second  childhood,  or 
the  state  of  decrepitude,  is  abnormal. 

Q.  10.  May  normal  matter  undergo  a  change  as  to 
its  state  and  form? 

A.     It  is  susceptible  of  change  into  many  forms. 

Q.  11.     Can  matter  change  itself? 

A.  No  more  than  the  Ethiopean  can  change  his  skin 
or  the  leopard  his  spots.  It  is  passive  in  all  its  trans- 
itions and  transformations. 

Q.  12.     How  then  is  the  change  produced? 

A.     By  some  other  substance  which  is  not  material. 

Q.  13.  What  is  the  general  term  applied  to  all  such 
immaterial  substances? 

A.  True  science  calls  them  the  force  elements  of 
nature,  and  they  will  be  more  fully  .explained  in  the 
next  chapter. 

Q.  14.  What  is  the  force  element  under  which  matter 
is  known  to  undergo  its  greatest  changes  from  the 
normal  or  solid  state? 

A.     Heat. 

Q.  15.     What  is  heat? 

A.  The  answer  to  this  question  will  be  more  fully 
given  hereafter. 

Q.  16.     Is  matter  composed  of  parts? 
A.     A  lump  of  matter  is  composed  of  parts,  and  yet 
each  part  is  subject  to  infinite  divisibility. 

Q.  17.     What  is  one  of  these  parts  called? 
A.     When  fractionally  reduced  to  minute  dimensions 
it  is  called  a  particle. 

Q.  18.  What  holds  these  particles  together  in  the 
solid  or  normal  condition  of  matter? 


MATERIAL  SUBSTANCE.  53 

A.  They  are  held  together  by  the  substantial  force  of 
cohesion  which  will  be  more  fully  explained  at  the  proper 
time  in  one  01  the  chapters  of  this  book. 

Q.  19.  Can  a  particle  of  matter,  or  any  portion  thereof, 
become  anything  else  than  matter? 

A.  It  cannot — not  even  by  a  process  of  division  ex- 
tending unto  infinity. 

Q.  20.  May  it  not  by  chemical  process  become  some- 
thing different  from  matter? 

A.  Neither  the  ancient  science  of  alchemy  nor  mod- 
ern chemistry  have  achieved  any  such  results. 

Q.  21.  Does  not  materialism  teach  that  matter  can 
develop  itself  into  mind? 

A.  It  so  teaches;  but  such  materialism  is  an  unscien- 
tific fraud,  and  teaches  an  untenable  theory  of  falsehood. 

Q.  22.  May  not  a  drop  of  water  be  divided  into  parts, 
and  any  one  of  its  parts  or  particles  be  separated  into  hy- 
drogen and  oxygen? 

A.  The  process  of  such  division  or'chemical  analysis 
does  not  convert  water  into  hydrogen  and  oxygen:  they 
already  existed,  and  in  their  chemical  union  constituted 
water.  Water  is  a  compound  material  substance,  and  by 
certain  known  process  may  be  analyzed  or  decomposed 
into  its  constituents. 

Q.  23.  May  not  one  of  the  constituents  of  a  compound 
substance  be  changed  into  something  else? 

A.  If  such  a  constituent  be  itself  a  compound,  it 
may  be  analyzed,  or  undergo  further  decomposition. 

Q.  24.  The  end  of  such  process  being  reached,  what 
have  we? 

A.  We  have  a  simple  material  substance,  or  matter 
purely  homogeneous. 

Q.  25.     What  is  meant  by  the  homogenity  of  matter? 
A.     That  matter,  properly  considered,  is  a  simple  ma- 


54  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

terial  substance  which  cannot  be  decomposed  or  analyzed 
by  any  power  or  process  known  to  chemistry. 

Q.  26.  What  is  this  simple,  material,  homogeneous 
substance  called  when  considered  in  its  relation  to  other 
simple  substances  as  they  all  enter  into  the  constitution 
of  a  compound? 

A.     It  is  called  an  element. 

Q.  27.  How  many  distinct  elements  are  now  known 
to  chemistry? 

A.  About  sixty-eight — about  the  number  of  books 
constituting  the  complete  volume  of  God's  Eevelation  to 
man. 

Q.  28.  Has  a  simple  or  homogeneous  particle  of  mat- 
ter any  different  elements  in  its  being? 

A.     It  has  not.     If  it  had,  it  would  be  heterogeneous. 

Q.  29.  To  whom  is  science  now  indebted  for  demon- 
strating that  matter  is  homogeneous  and  not  heterogene- 
ous? 

A.  To  Dr.  Mott,  in  various  articles  in  the  Micro- 
cosm. 

Q.  30.  Is  the  smallest  possible  particle  of  matter 
porous? 

A.     Porosity  ends  where  indivisibility  begins. 

Q.  31.     Where  is  that? 

A.     Just  one  point  on  the  other  side  of  infinity. 

Q.  32.  But  is  not  a  particle  divisible  into  molecules 
or  atoms? 

A.  A  particle  is  still  divisible  into  smaller  particles, 
and  there  can  be  no  serious  objection  to  calling  a  small 
particle  a  molecule,  but  it  is  still  nothing  less  than  a 
particle  of  the  same  size  and  nothing  more  than  matter. 

Q.  33.  Why  then  are  these  small  particles  called 
molecules? 

A.     To  use  them  as  pepper  for  the  eyes  of  unsuspect- 


MATERIAL  SUBSTANCE.  55 

ing  dupes  and  gullions — to  get  them  out  of  the  chemical 
domain  into  the  realm  of  legerdemain. 

Q.  34.  Is  there  really  such  a  thing  as  legerdemain  in 
science? 

A.     Yes,  in  false  science. 

Q.  35.     Why  do  learned  men  resort  to  such  things? 

A.  To  cover  up  and  hide  the  defect?  and  deformities  of 
false  theories. 

Q.  36.  What  is  this  whole  system  of  false  theories  in 
chemistry  and  physics  called? 

A.  It  is  known  by  the  general  and  appropriate  term 
materialism. 

Q.  37.  But  is  it  not  just  as  proper  to  use  the  term 
materialism  as  it  is  to  speak  of  Substantialism? 

A.  We  do  not  object  to  the  use  of  the  term,,  although 
its  apostles  tacitly  ignore  that  more  important  side  of 
God's  creation  which  is  not  material,  but  we  protest 
against  its  positive  falsification  of  the  facts  of  nature, 
and  the  unwarrantable  conclusions  to  which  its  false 
reasoning  leads. 

Q.  38.  In  what  does  materialism  falsify  the  facts  of 
nature? 

A.  It  attributes  to  matter  forces  which  are  independ- 
ent thereof,  and  superior  thereto. 

Q.  39.     What  are  these  forces? 

A.  They  will  receive  general  attention  in  the  next 
chapter,  and  be  treated  more  specifically  in  the  following 
chapters  of  this  book. 

Q.  40.  Is  there  then  nothing  but  transformality,  di- 
visibility and  porosity  predicable  of  matter? 

A.     Matter  has  other  properties. 

Q.  41.  Will  you  name  a  few  of  the  properties  of  mat- 
ter? 

A.  Inertia,  impenetrability,  transparency,  and  elas- 
ticity. 


56  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

Q.  42.     What  is  the  inertia  of  matter? 

A.  Its  inability  to  move  itself,  and  to  cease  moving 
when  in  motion. 

Q.  43.  What  is  meant  by  the  impenetrability  of  mat- 
ter? 

A.  That  peculiar  property  thereof  by  which  it  ex- 
cludes other  matter  from  the  same  space  it  occupies. 

Q.  44.     Is  matter  absolutely  impenetrable? 

A.  It  does  not  exclude  all  substances  from  the  place 
it  occupies,  as  will  be  shown  hereafter. 

Q.  45.     What  is  meant  by  the  transparency  of  matter? 

A.  Its  penetrability  so  far  as  it  is  able  to  receive 
light. 

Q.  46.     Are  all  material  bodies  penetrable  by  light? 

A.     No;  only  such  as  have  the  ability  to  receive  it. 

Q.  47.     Does  light  give  matter  its  transparency? 

A.  No.  Some  bodies  of  matter  have  transparency  in 
their  constitutional  structure,  and  the  entrance  of  light 
gives  them  penetrability  before  the  power  of  vision. 

Q.  48.     Is  elasticity  a  property  of  matter? 

A.     It  is  a  peculiar  property  in  matter. 

Q.  49.     Of  what  is  elasticity  a  property? 
A.     It   is  the  effect  of  cohesion  or  constructive  force 
operative  in  some  kinds  of  matter. 

Q.  50.  Is  this  cohesion  and  constructive  force  found 
in  all  bodies  of  matter? 

A.  No;  only  in  such  as  have  the  potential  ability  to 
receive  it. 

Q.  51.  In  the  process  of  change  from  one  state  to 
another,  say  from  the  solid  to  the  fluid,  or  the  gaseous 
form,  is  it  possible  for  matter  to  suffer  diminution  or 
loss  of  any  of  its  particles? 

A.  We  have  no  authority  in  either  Revelation  or 
science  for  believing  or  teaching  that  God  will  permit 


MATERIAL  SUBSTANCE.  5? 

the  annihilation  of  anything  which  He  has  made,  and 
which  belongs  properly  to  His  creation.  Out  of  nothing 
nothing  comes,  and  unto  nothing  nothing  goes. 

Q.  52.  Is  the  material  part  of  the  universe  therefore 
everlasting? 

A.     Not  in  its  present  form. 

Q.  53.  Will  the  material  heavens  and  earth  undergo  a 
radical  change? 

A.  They  shall  perish,  and  wax  old  as  doth  a  gar- 
ment, and  they  shall  be  changed. 

Q.  54.  Will  there  then  be  no  more  heavens  and  no 
more  earth? 

A.     There  shall  be  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth. 

Q.  55.  Will  they  be  any  less  real  or  substantial  than 
the  present  heavens  and  earth,  in  whose  constitution  the 
material  elements  now  serve  their  purpose? 

A.  They  will  be  more  so  indeed.  The  immaterial  is 
more  real  and  more  truly  substantial  than  the  corporeal. 

Q.  56.     Will  the  new  heavens  continue  forever? 

A.  They  who  seek  a  more  enduring  substance  shall 
find  a  house  not  made  with  hands  eternal  in  the  heavens. 
That  which  is  eternal  in  the  heavens  is  most  probably  in 
the  eternal  heavens. 

Q  57.  Will  there,  then,  be  nothing  material  about  the 
new  heavens  and  their  contents? 

A.  Whatever  of  material  substance  enters  into  the 
constitution  of  the  future  heavens,  with  the  inhabitants 
thereof  and  their  environments,  will  be  more  highly  at- 
tenuated and  refined  than  matter  in  its  present  state. 

Q.  58.  Through  what  agencies  will  this  great  change 
be  wrought?  ^ 

A.  Science  teaches  that  heat  is  the  great  chemical 
dissolvent,  and  Revelation  proclaims  that  the  day  cometh 
that  shall  burn  as  an  oven,  that  the  elements  of  matter 
shall  melt  with  fervent  heat. 


58  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

Q.  59.  Will  matter  then  continue  to  exist  in  the 
melted  or  fluid  form  as  a  vast  and  universal  sea  of  molten 
material? 

A.  Reason  teaches  that  God  would  not  permit  matter 
to  have  a  perpetual  existence  in  any  one  of  its  abnormal 
states,  and  Revelation  teaches  that  there  shall  be  no  more 
sea,  except  the  sea  of  glass  before  his  throne. 

Q  60.  What  is  primarily  signified  by  the  celestial  sea 
of  glass? 

A.  It  signifies  that  God's  whole  creation,  which  now 
groaneth  and  travaileth  in  pain  for  deliverance  from  its 
present  comparative  opacity,  shall  be  so  renovated  as  to 
its  morals,  so  refined  arid  attenuated  as  to  its  material, 
and  so  rendered  transparent  as  to  the  full  and  ultimate 
scope  of  its  meaning,  as  to  admit  the  effulgent  light  of 
the  great  white  throne,  and  mirror  back  the  image  of  the 
"  King  in  his  beauty." 


CHAPTER  III. 

IMMATERIAL   FORCES. 

QUESTION  1.  Since  matter  is  inert,  and  consequently 
incapable  of  moving  itself,  and  since  it  is  equally  incapa- 
ble of  generating  a  motor-power  of  its  own,  whence  is  it 
that  the  material  substance  of  creation  is  made  to  serve 
the  progessive  purpose  of  God  in  the  vast  machinery  or 
organism  of  the  universe? 

ANSWER.     By  Force. 

Q.  2.     What  is  force? 

A.  It  is  the  energy  which  God  imparted  to  creation 
in  the  constitution  of  the  universe,  and  which  he  still 
continues  to  communicate  thereto  in  his  providential 
maintenance,  movements,  and  government  thereof. 

Q.  3.  Does  he  impart  or  communicate  this  energy 
from  himself? 

A.  He  does.  There  is  no  other  primary  source  of  en- 
ergy or  force. 

Q.  4.  Is  the  force  element  thus  present  in  creation  a 
constitutional  and  essential  part  thereof? 

A.  So  science  teaches  us  to  believe,  and  honesty  com- 
pels us  to  affirm. 

Q.  5.  Is  not  this  force  element  in  creation  just  what 
the  "  Heidelberg  Confession  "  teaches  in  question  twenty- 
seven  to  be  "the  almighty  and  everywhere-present  power 
of  God/' and  is  not  this  "power"  merely  an  abstract 
attribute  of  the  Deity  without  entity  or  substance? 

A.     There  is  no  conflict  between  the   above-named 


60  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

question  of  the  old  Reformation  catechism  and  Substan- 
tialism,  unless  the  former  be  so  interpreted  as  to  teach 
that  the  real  and  entitative  universe  can  be  maintained, 
propelled,  and  governed  by  the  nonentity  of  an  ab- 
straction. 

Q.  6.  But  is  not  this  the  old  heresy  of  emanationism 
revived? 

A.  It  is  no  more  heretical  to  admit  that  energy  pro- 
ceeds from  the  Creator  to  creation  than  for  infallible 
inspiration  to  teach  that  virtue  went  forth  from  the  Son 
of  God  to  heal  the  sick. 

Q.  7.  But  does  not  such  reasoning  lead  logically  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  flowing  forth  of  energy  from  the 
fountain  diminishes  the  amount  of  energy  therein? 

A.  That  which  is  infinite  cannot  be  diminished.  At 
least  the  Christian  scientist  will  not  admit  that  Christ 
was  any  less  virtuous  after  the  efflux  of  healing  force  from 
his  person. 

Q.  8.  Does  Substantialism,  then,  teach  that  some 
things  have  a  real  entitative  existence  without  being  com- 
posed of  matter? 

A.  It  so  teaches  with  all  the  assurance  that  ascer- 
tained facts  justify,  and  with  all  the  emphasis  that  obvi- 
ous truth  inspires. 

Q.  9.  Does  it  teach  that  these  immaterial  entities  are 
either  infinite  or  spiritual? 

A.  According  to  Substantialism  they  are  not  neces- 
sarily the  one  or  the  other. 

Q.  10.     How  are  the  finite  forces  of  creation  classified? 

A.     They  may  be  classified  as  vital  and  nonvital  forces. 

Q.  11.     What  are  the  nonvital  forces  called? 

A.  They  may  be  denominated  as  the  chemical  or  phys- 
ical forces  of  nature. 

Q.  12.     How  many  physical  forces  are  there  in  nature? 
A,     Their  number  is  not  known  any  more  than  the 


IMMATERIAL   FORCES.  61 

number  of  distinct  elements  in  the  domain  of  material 
substances. 

Q.  13.  Will  you  name  a  few  of  the  known  forces  of 
nature? 

A.  Leaving  odor  as  yet  somewhat  questionable  in  its 
real  constitution  and  nature,  the  Substantial  Philosophy 
is  at  present  pushing  seven  different  immaterial  sub- 
stances into  the  scientific  arena  of  the  world,  emphasizing 
them  as  among  the  fundamental  forces  of  nature,  with  a 
general  challenge  to  the  scientific  world  to  dispute  the 
claim  that  it  respectfully  and  yet  defiantly  makes  in 
their  behalf. 

Q.  14.     What  are  these  seven  forces? 
A.     They  are  cohesion,  gravity,  magnetism,  electricity, 
light,  heat  and  sound* 

Q.  15.  Are  not  these  seven  forces  but  one  force  with 
different  offices  and  operations  in  the  extensive  and  man- 
ifold realm  of  the  physical  department  of  finite  being? 

A.     They  are  one  in  their  primordial  source  and  es- 

*  To  teach,  as  do  the  received  theories  of  science  and  philos- 
ophy, that  the  physical  forces  of  Nature,  such  as  light,  heat, 
sound,  magnetism,  gravity,  electricity,  etc.,  are  but  modes  o/ 
motion  among  material  particles,  and  not  themselves  substantial 
entities,  is  as  irrational  and  unsatisfactory  to  the  mind  of  an  in- 
telligent Substantialist  as  to  teach  that  the  invisible  spring  in 
the  clock-case  is  only  a  mode  of  motion  of  the  clock-wheels 
which  it  drives.  Substantialism  therefore  repudiates  this  notion 
that  any  force  of  Nature  is  but  a  mode  of  motion;  and  hence  it 
claims  as  among  its  fundamental  principles  and  original  dis- 
coveries that  sound,  as  well  as  light  and  heat,  instead  of  being  a 
mode  of  motion,  is  a  real  immaterial  but  substantial  emanation 
from  the  sources  whence  it  radiates;  and  that  but  for  trying  to 
make  light  and  heat  material  emanations,  as  did  Newton  and 
others  in  his  day,  instead  of  making  them  what  they  really  are 
— immaterial  entities — the  true  Substantial  Philosophy  might 
have  been  inaugurated  a  hundred  years  ago. — Dr.  Hall  in  the 
Microcosm,  vol.  iv.,  p.  22,  • 


62  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

sence,  and  yet,  like  the  seven  spirits  of  God  spoken  of  in 
Revelation,  proceeding  from  the  same  Spirit-fountain  of 
all,  they  are  as  distinct  from  each  other  as  they  are  in- 
separable from  their  common  origin.  Like  the  seven 
colors  in  the  rainbow,  all  of  which  proceed  from  the  same 
common  source  of  light  and  yet  form  distinct  arches  in 
Heaven's  beautiful  token  of  the  Covenant  with  man,  these 
seven  forces  of  nature,  when  seen  in  the  light  of  true 
science,  constitute  another  arch  of  hope  and  promise  that 
creation  shall  not  be  forever  deluged  with  the  destructive 
flood  of  materialistic  philosophy,  whose  murky  waters  are 
even  now  beginning  to  abate  from  the  face  of  the  earth. 

Q.  16.  Does  Substantialism,  then,  teach  that  these 
distinct  forms  of  force,  and  the  several  simple  elemental 
substances  denominated  matter,  have  all  been  evolved 
from  and  produced  by  the  same  Infinite  source  of  all 
being? 

A.     It  so  teaches  unequivocally. 

Q.  17.  Are  the  adherents  of  the  Substantial  Philoso- 
phy, then,  to  understand  that  force  is  a  mere  highly  at- 
tenuated form  of  matter?. 

A.  While  force  and  matter  have  a  common  source  of 
existence,  they  differ  qualitatively  as  to  their  respective 
essences,  as  well  as  in  the  positions  and  purposes  assigned 
them  in  the  dual  constitution  and  progressive  economy 
of  the  universe. 

Q.  18.  Who  first  advanced  and  advocated  these  essential 
and  revolutionary  tenets  of  philosophy? 

A.     Dr.  A.  Wilford  Hall,  of  23  Park  Row,  Ne^  York. 

Q.  19.  In  what  college  or  university  was  he  schooled 
in  the  principles  and  laws  of  physical  science? 

A.  Instead  of  slavishly  following  the  beaten  path  of 
old  and  current  theories,  he  placed  and  pressed  his  ear 
upon  the  warm  bosom  of  Nature,  and  felt  the  instinctive 
throbbings  of  her  sympathetic  heart. 


IMMATERIAL  FORCES.  63 

Q.  20.  Was  not  this  presumption  on  the  part  of  the 
founder  of  Substantialism? 

A.  Yes,  it  was  just  such  presumption  as  that  which 
gave  Socrates  honor  above  Sophists,  Harvey  an  enviable 
distinction  in  medical  history,  and  Gallillea  an  immor- 
tality of  glory  that  fadeth  not  away. 

Q.  21.  Did  not  Dr.  Hall  take  a  paradoxical  position 
and  pursue  an  unpopular  course  in  crossing  the  paths  of 
current  and  accepted  theories  in  science  as  taught  in  all 
the  old  institutions  of  learning  throughout  the  world? 

A.  His  position  was  at  first  very  unpopular.  It  is 
not  so  unpopular  to-day. 

Q.  22.  But  is  not  the  voice  of  the  people  the  voice  of 
God? 

A.  Nonsense!  In  heaven  the  saying  is  true;  on  earth 
it  is  generally  false. 

Q.  23.  Was  his  course  warranted  by  anything  found 
in  Eevelation? 

A.  Yes,  the  Bible  teaches  that  the  wisdom  of  the 
world  is  foolishness  with  God. 

Q.  24.     Why  is  it  foolishness  with  God? 

A.  Because  it  is  false,  and  its  teachings  not  on  a 
line  parallel  with  the  facts  as  God  has  ordained  them, 
and  as  he  would  have  them  known  in  the  study  of  his 
Word  and  works. 

Q.  25.  Did  the  founder  of  Substantialism  ignore 
everything  that  science  had  already  achieved  in  its  ef- 
forts to  interpret  Nature's  entities  and  laws? 

A.  He  did  not.  He  rather  made  himself  familiar 
with  the  teachings  of  the  past  in  order  not  only  to  know 
the  fundamental  errors  of  many  of  its  teachings,  but  also 
to  enrich  himself  with  the  wheat  of  truth  which  he  found 
in  a  great  amount  of  theoretical  chaff. 

Q.  26.     Does   Substantialism   consist    merely    of    the 


64  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

truth  as  found  only  in  the  old  theories  after  winnowing 
the  chaff  of  error  therefrom  ? 

A.  While  the  Substantial  Philosophy  accepts  and 
teaches  some  truths  previously  taught,  it  is  radically  dif- 
ferent, as  to  its  essential  and  distinguishing  principles, 
from  anything  hitherto  taught  as  science. 

Q.  27.  What  is  the  fundamental  principle  of  the 
Substantial  Philosophy  which  distinguishes  it  from,  and 
makes  it  superior  in  truth  and  excellence  to  the  current 
teachings  of' the  schotols? 

A.  The  Substantial  Philosophy  teaches  that  every- 
thing in  the  universe,  visible  or  invisible,  tangible  or  in- 
tangible, corporeal  or  incorporeal,  of  which  the  mind 
can  form  a  positive  concept,  is  a  real  substance  or  objec- 
tive entity.* 

Q.  28.  In  what  'publication  did  this  new  philosophy 
first  appear  and  challenge  investigation  by  the  learned 
and  thinking  world? 

A.     In  the  "Problem  of  Human  Life." 

Q.  29.  When  did  Dr.  Hall  give  this  revolutionary 
book  to  the  public? 

A.     In  1877. 

Q.  30.  Does  the  birth  of  Substantialism  bear  the 
same  date  as  its  formal  announcement  to  the  world? 

A.  It  dates  a  number  of  years  prior  to  the  first  ap- 
pearance of  the  "Problem." 

Q.  31.  But  was  not  this  same  doctrine  advanced  and 
advocated  by  other  philosophers  previous  to  the  inaugura- 
tion of  Substantialism? 

A.  If  so,  no  record  thereof  is  found  upon  the  pages 
of  history. 

Q.  32.  Is  it  not  an  accepted  and  announced  tenet  of 
the  Christian  religion  that  God  is  a  substance? 

*  See  The  SubstantiaUsf  s  Creed,  Scientific  Arena,  vol.  I.  p.  6, 


IMMATERIAL   FORCES.  65 

A.  The  Nicene  Creed,  one  of  the  Catholic  or  Ecu- 
menical confessions  of  Patristic  Christianity,  taught  that 
Christ  was  "of  one  substance  with  the  Father,"  but  the 
subsequent  trend  of  theological  science  has  been  so  much 
in  the  direction  of  a  spiritualistic  interpretation  of  every- 
thing concerning  the  infinite  God  that  any  proper  idea  of 
substance,  as  once  held  by  the  Church  Fathers,  has  been 
measurably  spirited  away  or  ignored  by  the  world's  most 
popular  and  influential  theologians. 

Q.  33.     But  is  not  God  a  spirit? 

A.  God  is  indeed  a  spirit,  and  just  as  really  a  sub- 
stance. 

Q.  34.  But  the  materialistic  philosophy,  at  whose 
doors  Substantialism.  continually  lays  the  charge  of 
heresy,  is  certainly  far  enough  removed  from  the  spirit- 
ualistic conception  and  construction  of  being.  What, 
then,  is  the  matter  with  materialism  ? 

A.  Materialism  lies  upon  one  side  of  the  truth,  while 
spiritualisticism  in  religion,  and  idealism  in  philos- 
ophy, are  found  in  the  opposite  extreme.  Between  these 
two  extremes  the  pendulum  of  restless  inquiry  after  the 
truth  has  been  swinging  through  all  the  centuries  from 
Platonism  to  Agnosticism,  and  it  were  strange,  indeed, 
if,  in  its  constant  oscillations,  it  did  not  pass  near  the 
truth,  even  though  it  had  no  power  until  recently  to  tarry 
in  the  vicinity  thereof. 

Q.  35.  But  did  not  Descartes  and  Leibnitz  advance 
the  doctrine  of  substance  several  centuries  ago? 

A.  It  is  true  that  these  two  great  philosophers  spoke 
of  substance,  monads,  and  pre-existent  things,  yet  they 
were  so  high  upon  their  transcendental  stilts  of  theoret- 
ical speculation  that  the  world  has  finally  abandoned  any 
further  attempt  to  arrive  at  anything  like  a  clear  and 
satisfactory  solution  of  their  ethereal  subtleties. 

Q.  36.  Is  not  Substantialism  also  charged  with  being 
equally  incomprehensible? 


66  THE   SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

A.  Its  adherents  have  found  no  such  fault.  On  the 
contrary,  they  agree  that  it  is  more  rational  and  lucid 
than  any  other  equally  profound  and  extensive  system  of 
thought  that  ever  challenged  the  candid  consideration  of 
thoughtful,  intelligent,  and  unprejudiced  minds. 

Q.  37.  What  good  reason  can  be  assigned  for  the  fact 
that  the  Substantial  Philosophy  is  being  received  with 
such  unprecedented  enthusiasm  and  delight  by  those 
who  are  willing  to  examine  its  claims  upon  their  impar- 
tial consideration? 

A.  The  answer  is  simple.  Man  was  made  for  the 
truth,  and  it  is  only  when  the  truth  remains  undiscov- 
ered, or  when  discovered  by  the  leaders  it  is  for  sinister 
purposes  withheld  from  the  masses,  or  when  the  masses 
have  become  perverse  and  obstinate  under  a  long  reign  of 
error  that  they  choose  to  believe  a  lie  in  preference  to  the 
truth.  - 

Q.  38.  But  may  it  not  in  truth  be  said  that  the  cur- 
rent materialistic  theories  of  philosophy  have  met  with  a 
general  reception  for  many  years  and  throughout  the 
scholastic  world? 

A.  These  theories  have  been  received  and  taught  for 
want  of  something  better,  just  as  a  majority  of  the  hu- 
man family  are  now  worshiping  idols  for  want  of  a 
knowledge  of  the  true  God.  There  is,  however,  not  that 
enthusiasm  in  false  philosophy  that  there  is  in  false 
religion. 

Q.  39.  Why  are  men  less  enthusiastic  in  false  philos- 
ophy than  they  are  in  false  religion? 

A.  Because  in  philosophy  truth  is  the  only  thing 
sought  after,  while  in  religion  there  are  other  elements 
besides  truth  entering  into  the  constitution  of  that  which 
its  votaries  regard  as  the  summum  bonum,  or  chief  good. 

Q.  40.  Is  it  not  true  that  hitherto  many  have  given  a, 
reluctant  assent  to  some  of  the  current  theories  of 


, 

IMMATERIAL  FORCES.  ti7 

science,  for  the  sole  reason  that  there  was  nothing  better 
to  take  their  places  in  the  curriculum  of  the  schools? 

A.  Thousands  of  men  converted  by  and  to  the  truth 
of  the  Substantial  Philosophy  are  ready  to  so  testify  as 
soon  as  their  unconverted  neighbors  are  willing  to  call 
them  to  the  witness-stand. 

Q.  41.  Will  God  hold  men  responsible  for  clinging  to 
error  where  the  truth  has  not  been  revealed? 

A.  Possibly  not.  But  the  truth  has  been  revealed 
from  the  very  throne  of  Nature,  and  therefore  the  times 
of  such  unscientific  ignorance  will  be  no  longer  winked 
at  by  Him  who  is  anxious  and  has  made  it  possible  for 
all  men  to  come  to  a  scientific  knowledge  of  the  truth. 

Q.  42.  What  then  is  the  only  remaining  condemna- 
tion? 

A.  That  new  substantial  scientific  light  has  come  into 
the  world,  and  some  men  choose  darkness  rather  than 
light  because  popular  error  is  regarded  as  more  respect- 
able than  unpopular  truth. 

Q.  43.  Does  Substantialism  teach  the  correlation  of 
forces? 

A.     It  does. 

Q.  44.     What  is  meant  by  such  correlation? 

A.  That  the  several  physical  forces  sustain  mutual  or 
correlative  relations  with  each  other. 

Q.  45.     Are  these  forces  convertible  one  into  another? 

A.  Under  favorable  conditions,  and  within  certain 
limitations,  they  are. 

Q.  46.     Is  force  therefore  destructible? 

A.  Science  teaches  the  conservation  of  energy.  Force, 
like  matter,  cannot  be  annihilated. 

Q.  47.  What  then  is  meant  by  the  convertibility  of 
force? 

A.  It  means  its  transformability,  or  its  ability  to 
exist  under  another  form  of  force  or  energy.  Thus  elec- 


68  THE  SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

tricity,  by  virtue  of  their  common  correlative  relation  to 
each  other,  may  be  converted  or  transformed  into  heat, 
light,  magnetism  or  sound,  or  all  of  them. 

Q.  48.  Are  the  doctrines  advanced  in  this  chapter 
controverted  by  any  authorities  upon  the  subject. 

A.  The  teachings  of  Substantial  ism  are  radically  at 
variance  with  accepted  authorities  on  the  most  essential 
points  involved  in  the  general  science  of  physics. 

Q.  4-9.     What  are  accepted  authorities? 

A.  Text-books  in  common  use  and  the  acknowledged 
educators  throughout  the  learned  world. 

Q.  50.  Who  are  those  representative  men  or  personal 
standards  of  authority  upon  the  facts  and  laws  of  phys- 
ical science? 

A.  Prof.  P.  G.  Tait,  of  the  University  of  Edinburgh, 
is  quite  generally  regarded  as  most  ably  and  fairly  repre- 
senting the  most  advanced  scientific  thought,  so  far  as 
there  can  be  any  such  thing  as  really  scientific  thought 
in  harmony  with  the  current  and  accepted,  theories  in 
physics. 

Q.  51.  Then  Substantialism  is  not  engaged  in  the 
sham-battle  of  fighting  a  man  of  straw? 

A.  No,  indeed.  There  is  no  straw  in  the  powers 
against  which  Substantialism  wrestles,  except  that  which 
is  found  in  the  bundle  of  dry  theories,  and  which  will 
give  them  combustibility  in  the  near  future,  when  every 
man's  work  is  to  be  tested  of  what  sort  it  is. 

Q.  52.  What  is  Prof.  Tait's  position,  and  what  does 
he  teach  concerning  force  as  he  sounds  and  resounds  the 
key-note  of  the  old  campaign  in  physical  science? 

A.  In  a  lecture  recently  delivered  before  a  learned 
audience,*  he  asserts  that  "  there  is  probably  no  such 

*  In  Edinburgh.  See  the  destructive  review  of  the  lecture  by 
Dr.  Hall  and  Dr.  Mott  in  Microcosm,  Vol.  V.,  p.  1. 


IMMATERIAL  FO14CES.  69 

thing  as  force  at  all."  "That  it  is,  in  fact,  merely  a 
convenient  expression  for  a  certain  rate" — "the  rate  or 
change  of  momentum/'  The  fact  is,  that  in  the  near 
future  those  who  are  now  denying  the  existence  of  the 
most  essential  elements  and  entities  in  God's  creation 
will  learn,  to  their  confusion  and  chagrin,  that  force  is 
not  a  mere  "convenient  expression,"  but  a  very  ^con- 
venient fact  and  substance  throughout  the  veritable  uni- 
verse of  God,  and  an  entity  that  can  never  be  satisfacto- 
rily explained  from  the  false  standpoint  still  occupied  by 
the  advocates  of  current  theories  in  physical  science. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

COHESION". 

QUESTION  1.     What  is  cohesion? 

ANSWER.  It  is  that  form  of  force  in  Nature  which 
unites  like  particles  of  matter  together  in  a  homogeneous 
mass. 

Q.  2.     Is  cohesion  a  substance? 

A.  It  is  an  immaterial  substance,  just  as  real  as  the 
material  particles  of  matter  under  its  control. 

Q.  3.     Whence  is  cohesion  derived? 

A.  Like  all  forms  of  force  in  the  universe  it  is 
evolved  or  created  from  the  Personal  Infinite  and  Abso- 
ute  Fountain  of  all  normal  energy. 

Q.  4.     Has  cohesion  an  existence  outside  of  matter? 

A.  Cohesion,  like  the  other  forces,  was  prior  to  mat- 
ter, is  superior  to  matter,  and,  therefore,  independent  of 
matter.  Matter,  however,  affords  cohesion  an  opportu- 
nity to  manifest  itself  in  the  phenomena  of  nature. 

Q.  5.  Does  Substantialisrn  then  teach  that  cohesion  is 
not  a  property  of  matter? 

A.  This,  indeed,  is  one  of  the  essential  tenets  and 
teachings  of  the  Substantial  Philosophy.  Instead  of  ex- 
isting as  a  mere  property  of  matter,  cohesion  is  rather 
one  of  the  proprietors  thereof. 

Q.  6.     In  what  sense  is  cohesion  proprietory  in  matter? 

A.  In  a  limited  degree  it  possesses  and  governs  matter 
by  holding  its  particles  in  normal  relation  with  each 
other. 


COHESION.  71 

Q.  7.  Is  cohesion  recognizable  through  the  evidences 
of  our  senses? 

A.  It  is  not,  except  as  to  its  effects.  As  a  substantial 
but  immaterial  entity  it  addresses  itself  to  our  higher 
faculty  of  reason.  In  the  proper  exercise  of  this  rational 
and  supersensuous  faculty  its  true  nature  may  be  profit- 
ably studied  until  it  shall  be  perfectly  known  by  its  de- 
monstrable effects  upon  matter. 

Q.  8.  Does  cohesion  hold  the  particles  of  matter  into 
absolutely  close  contact  with  each  other? 

A.  As  close  as  that  property  of  matter  known  as 
porosity  will  admit. 

Q.  9.  But  can  the  inferior  properties  of  mere  matter 
interfere  with  or  limit  the  action  of  the  superior  sub- 
stantial force  elements  of  nature? 

A.  The  forces  of  nature  never  act  upon  matter  or  in 
matter  in  such  way  as  to  do  violence  to  matter,  or  to  any 
of  its  properties  or  laws.  The  higher  kingdom  may  suf- 
fer violence,  but  it  never  does  violence  to  the  kingdom  or 
order  of  being  next  beneath  it,  and  to  which,  according 
to  the  general  providence  of  the  "  King  invisible,"  it  con- 
descends as  a  benefactor. 

Q.  10.     Is  all  matter  porous? 

A.  Gold  is  as  really  porous  as  sponge.  Under  suffi- 
cient pressure,  water  may  be  forced  through  a  body  or 
plate  of  gold. 

Q,  11.  Does  Substantialism  then  teach  that  the  sub- 
stantial force  elements  of  nature  penetrate  matter  by 
virtue  of  its  porosity? 

A.  This  is  just  what  Substantialism  does  not  teach. 
With  all  the  emphasis  that  truth  justifies,  it  teaches  the 
opposite  doctrine.  Some  of  the  forces  of  nature  pass 
through  platinum  and  glass  more  freely  than  they  would 
through  a  sponge  or  sieve,  and  yet  platinum  and  glass 
are  considered  impervious  to  and  impenetrable  by  matter. 


72  THE   SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

Q.  12.  Then  cohesion  does  not  reside  in  normal  mat- 
ter by  virtue  of  its  pores  or  interstices? 

A.  Not  at  all.  As  stated  in  a  former  chapter,  mate- 
rial substances  are  not  absolutely  impenetrable,  as  taught 
in  the  current  theories  of  Natural  Philosophy.  Im- 
material substances  and  substances  material  may  dwell 
together  in  the  same  place,  even  when  such  place  is 
reduced  in  dimensions  to  the  smallest  possible  measure 
of  finite  extension. 

Q.  13.  Are  the  several  force  elements  of  Nature  ca- 
pable of  being  penetrated  by  each  other?  Is  impenetra- 
bility a  property  of  immaterial  substance? 

A.  It  can  be  shown  beyond  dispute,  that  two  or  more 
of  the  forces  may  dwell  together  in  the  same  place — that 
they  neither  exclude  each  other  from  the  same  identical 
locality,  encroach  upon  each  other's  right-of-way,  as  they 
severally  move  forward  upon  their  respective  missions, 
nor  stumble  over  each  other  until  they  tumble  into  con- 
fusion like  many  of  the  untruthful  theories  of  modern 
materialistic  philosophy. 

Q.  14.  But  do  not  the  several  normal  force  elements 
sometimes  destructively  antagonize  each  other  by  their 
respective  operations  in  and  through  nature? 

A.  Only  in  appearance  is  such  antagonism  destruc- 
tive. They  are  as  really  co-operative  in  their  services  as 
they  are  correlative  in  the  one  grand  purpose  of  God, 
and  the  one  great  solution  of  Nature's  complex  and  com- 
prehensive problem. 

Q.  15.  Which  one  of  the  force  elements  of  Nature 
seems  to  be  destructively  antagonistic  to  cohesion? 

A.  As  stated  elsewhere,  heat,  among  the  forces  is  the 
great  dissolvent,  and  therefore  may  be  regarded  as  the 
most  direct  counteractant  of  cohesion. 

Q.  16.  What  degree  of  heat  is  required  to  overcome 
cohesion  in  metal? 


COHESION.  73 

A.     Different  degrees  are  required  in  different  metals. 

Q.  17.  Why  is  less  heat  required  in  one  metal  than  in 
another?* 

A.  Because  in  some  metals  the  particles  of  matter 
are  so  arranged  that  heat  and  cohesion  operate  more 
correlatively  than  in  others. 

Q.  18.  How  many  degrees  of  heat,  respectively,  are 
required  to  overcome  cohesion  in  lead,  tin,  and  bismuth? 

A.  Lead  requires  619  deg.  F.,  tin  442  deg.  F.,  and 
bismuth  510  deg.  F. 

Q.  19.  What  then  should  be  the  mean  melting  point 
when  in  a  certain  proportion  alloyed? 

*  Take  another  illustration,  which  a  beginner  in  physical  sci- 
ence will  comprehend,  but  which  no  physicist  has  ever  at- 
tempted to  explain,  simply  because  it  is  inexplicable  according 
to  any  present  scientific  theory.  We  refer  to  the  well-known 
fact  that  a  certain  proportionate  alloy  of  lead,  tin  and  bismuth 
will  fuse  at  201  deg.  F.,  while  lead's  fusing  point  is  619  deg.,  tin's 
fusing  point  is  442  deg.,  and  that  of  bismuth  is  510.  deg.  Why 
is  it  that  these  metals  when  mixed  will  melt  at  less  than  half  the 
heat  required  by  the  lowest,  and  less  than  one  third  the  heat  re- 
quired by  the  highest  of  the  three  metals  constituting  the  alloy  ? 
Surely  here  is  a  problem  worth  attacking  by  science.  But  diffi- 
cult as  it  seems,  all  mystery  disappears  when  we  give  proper 
consideration  to  the  nature  and  correlation  of  the  forces  as  sub- 
stantial entities. 

The  melting  of  any  substance  by  heat  consists  simply  in  the 
yielding  of  the  cohesive  force  which  holds  the  body  in  a  solid 
condition,  sufficiently  to  liquify  it.  The  intensity  of  heat  re- 
quired to  melt  any  given  body,  and  thus  overcome  its  cohesion 
as  a  solid,  depends  entirely  upon  the  correlation  existing  be- 
tween these  two  substantial  forces,  as  regards  the  cohesive  ar- 
rangement of  the  particles  of  the  particular  substance  to  be 
fused.  Plainly  the  same  metallic  substances  must  exist  in  the 
alloy  which  existed  in  the  three  separate  metals  before  mixing, 
the  only  difference,  so  far  as  the  action  of  heat-force  is  con- 
cerned, being  a  new  and  different  cohesive  arrangement  of  the 


74  THE   SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

A.     The  mean  melting  point  should  be  523  deg.  F. 

Q.  20.  Does  Wood's  alloy  require  a  temperature  of 
523  deg.  to  melt  it? 

A.     It  does  not.     It  will  melt  at  201  deg.  F. 

Q.  21.  How  can  this  remarkable  phenomenon  be  ac- 
counted for? 

A.  It  cannot  be  satisfactorily  explained  by  any  prin- 
ciple hitherto  known  to  chemical  or  physical  science; 
neither  can  the  problem  be  solved  by  any  rule  of  simple 
or  compound  proportion  hitherto  found  in  the  mathe- 
matics of  materialism. 

Q.  22.     IIo\v  then  may  it  be  accounted  for? 

A.     By  a  candid  recognition  and  rational  use  of  the 

particles  in  the  alloy,  by  which  heat  can  the  more  easily  master 
and  thus  neutralize  cohesion.  If  there  is  nothing  in  these  forces 
by  which  substantial  co-operation  or  conflict  can  occur,  then 
the  melting  point  of  the  alloy  should  be  the  mean  of  the  three 
separately;  that  is  to  say,  about  523  deg.  F.,  just  as  the  weight  of 
the  alloy  \vould  be  the  mean  aggregate  of  the  three  weights  be- 
fore melting.  This  is  as  it  should  be,  and  according  to  observa- 
tion, for  the  reason  that  no  change  takes  place  in  cohesive  force 
in  its  relation  to  gravity  in  this  act  of  forming  an  alloy,  while 
there  does  a  change  take  place  in  cohesion  in  its  susceptibility 
to  be  overpowered  by  heat;  for,  instead  of  the  fusing  point  in 
the  alloy  occurring  at  the  average  mean  temperature  of  523  deg., 
it  is  actually  reduced  to  201  deg. 

The  truth  is,  this  mingling  of  the  three  separate  arrangements 
by  cohesive  force,  in  the  three  separate  metals  when  alloyed, 
simply  weakens  its  hold  on  their  combined  particles,  and,  on 
account  of  the  peculiar  contest  it  experiences  with  heat  in  the 
alloying  process,  now  makes  it  an  easier  prey  to  its  chief  enemy 
in  nature — heat.  If  these  forces  were  not  as  really  substantial 
as  the  metals  upon  whose  particles  they  act,  we  see  no  possible 
ground  for  an  intelligible  solution  of  the  mystery  they  present. 
As  real  substantial  friends  or  enemies  in  the  economy  of  nature 
these  forces  may  oppose  or  assist  each  other,  as  circumstances 
require,  and  thus  exhibit  all  the  wonderful  phenomena  ob- 
served, but  not  otherwise.— Dr.  Hall,  in  Scientific  Arena,  Vol. 
I.,  p.  43. 


COHESION.  75 

facts  and  laws  recently  presented  in  the  Substantial 
Philosophy. 

Q.  23.     What  facts  and  laws  are  these? 

A.  That  cohesion  and  heat  are  substantial  forces; 
that  they  are  not  only  correlative  in  Nature,  but  also,  and 
as  a  consequence  of  their  correlation,  they  have  relative 
strength,  and  that  their  respective  degrees  of  strength 
differ  in  different  simple  or  compound  metals,  enabling 
them  to  cling  with  a  greater  or  less  degree  of  tenacity 
according  to  the  arrangement  or  rearrangement  of 
particles. 

Q.  24.  What,  then,  is  it  that  conditions  the  degree  of 
power  which  force  may  have  over  matter? 

A.  It  is  conditioned  by  the  ability  of  matter  to  receive 
force,  and  by  the  extent  to  which  two  or  more  forces  are 
able  to  correlate  each  other  in  any  given  body  of  matter. 

Q.  25.  But  why  may  not  question  twenty-one  be  satis- 
factorily answered  from  the  old  materialistic  standpoint 
in  philosophy? 

A.  Because  materialism  denies  the  existence  in  matter 
of  any  force  which  is  not  inherent  therein,  essential 
thereto,  or  a  property  thereof. 

Q.  26.  How  is  the  impotency  of  the  current  theories 
of  philosophy  logically  deducible  from  such  a  general 
denial  of  the  proper  force  elements  of  Nature? 

A.  It  is  logically  deducible  from  what  will  generally 
be  admitted  as  fundamentally  true  in  the  following  form- 
ula: That  which  is  a  mere  property  of  a  thing,  or  an  in- 
nate quality  thereof,  has  no  poiver  to  amend  the  law  of  the 
being  upon  which  it  depends  for  its  own  existence,  and 
just  as  little  poiver  to  change  the  conditions  of  its  convert- 
ibility from  one  state  or  form  to  another. 

Q.  27.  But  is  not  cohesion  a  mere  quality  in  matter, 
or  a  property  thereof  and  dependent  thereupon? 

A.     No  more  than  the  soul  is  a  mere  property  of  the 


7ti  THE  SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

body,  or  dependent  upon  the  body  for  existence,  as  shown 
elsewhere  in  this  book. 

Q.  28.     Is  cohesion  dissolvable  by  heat? 
A.     Cohesion  is  an  entity,  and  therefore  incapable  of 
destructible  dissolution. 

Q.  29.     Is  immaterial  substance  divisible. 

A.  In  the  physical  domain  immaterial  substance  is  an 
element  and  therefore  is  divisible  into  particles,  even  as 
it  is  transformable;  in  the  biological  domain  of  being, 
as  will  be  hereinafter  shown,  immaterial  substance  is 
grounded  in  life,  and  therefore  involves  the  possibility  of 
manifestation  in  numerous  individuals. 

Q.  30.     What  then  does  heat,  as  a  dissolvent,  separate? 

A.  Heat  swells  the  mass  and  every  portion  and  par- 
ticle of  the  mass  but  does  not  separate  them. 

Q.  31.  As  heat  in  the  swelling  of  material  bodies  and 
particles  does  not  destroy  cohesion,  what  is  its  peculiar 
effect  upon  cohesive  force  in  matter? 

A.  Heat  overpowers  cohesion  sufficiently  to  expand 
the  body  only,  however,  to  extent  of  heat  applied. 

Q.  32.  What  then  becomes  of  that  particular  portion 
of  cohesive  force  thus  superseded  and  suspended  by  the 
superior  force  of  heat? 

A.  As  to  its  positive  workings  as  an  agent  for  the 
God  of  Nature,  it  temporarily  retires  from  that  portion 
of  the  field,  and  falls  back  to  report  for  duty  at  the 
fountain-head  of  all  authority  and  power. 

Q.  33.  Will  cohesion  ever  return  again  to  the  field 
from  which  it  had  been  driven  to  bring  the  decomposed 
body  of  matter  back  to  its  former  and  normal  condition? 

A.  As  soon  as  heat  has  completed  its  mission  in  any 
lump  of  matter,  and  consequently  relinquishes  its  sway, 
cohesion  again  appears  upon  the  hotly  contested  field, 
takes  the  cooling  particles  of  the  former  body  of  matter 


COHESION.  77 

into  its  embrace,  gives  them  a  pressing  reception,  arid 
holds  them  in  their  normal  relation  to  each  other. 

Q.  34.  Does  cohesion  ever  fail  to  reappear  under  the 
aforenamed  conditions. 

A.  Never.  Like  all  the  other  forces  of  nature,  it  is 
always  at  its  post  wherever  the  law  of  nature's  economy, 
or  the  solution  of  nature's  problem  require  its  services, 
and  whenever  such  services  are  possible. 

Q.  35.  But  may  not  cohesion  be  antagonized  by  some 
extrinsic  force  mechanically  applied? 

A.  It  may  be,  and  frequently  is  so  antagonized,  as? 
for  instance,  by  the  projection  of  a  lump  of  matter 
against  a  pane  of  glass,  or  when  a  boy  blows  his  breath 
into  a  soap-bubble. 

Q.  36.  What  is  the  effect  of  such  collision  between 
bodies,  or  such  conflict  of  forces? 

A.  The  effect  varies  according  to  the  properties  of 
the  matter  composing  the  bodies,  and  the  relative 
strength  of  the  forces  thus  antagonizing  each  other. 

Q.  37.  What  is  the  effect  in  a  case  of  collision  be- 
tween fragile  bodies? 

A.  The  usual  effect  is  that  one  or  both  colliding 
bodies  are  broken  into  fragments. 

Q.  38.  What  may  prevent  the  instantaneous  frag- 
mentation of  one  or  the  other,  or  both  of  the  colliding 
bodies? 

A.     Elasticity. 

Q.  39.  Is  not  elasticity  therefore  another  term  for 
cohesion? 

A.  Cohesion,  in  the  common  acceptation  of  the  term, 
is  not  broad  enough  to  include  in  its  mission  of  con- 
structing bodies,  the  arranging  of  their  particles,  the  re- 
arranging of  them  into  more  contracted  or  expanded 
forms,  etc. 

Q.  40.     What  then  would  be  a  more  adequate  tern? 


78  THE   SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

for  cohesion  in  its  broader  meaning  and  in  the  broader 
domain  of  its  mission  as  a  force-element  in  Nature? 

A.     Constructive  force. 

Q.  41.     What  does  such  constructive  force  include? 

A.  It  includes  cohesion,  in  the  narrow  sense  of  the 
term,  adhesion,  the  power  of  readjustment  and  chemism.* 

Q.  42.  Is  tins  constructive  force  equally  operative  in 
all  elements  and  in  all  the  combinations  of  elements  in 
bodies  of  matter? 

A.  No.  As  already  seen,  only  according  to  the  elas- 
ticity thereof,  and  its  consequent  ability  to  receive  the  aid 
of  such  constructive  force. 

*  Having  thus  defined  force,  energy,  inertia,  and  momentum, 
we  have  now  to  ask  what  is  meant  by  the  *•  property"  of  any 
given  body,  and  how  does  it  originate  ?  And  here  we  approach 
one  of  the  most  profound  and  difficult  fields  of  research  and  in- 
vestigation in  the  entire  domain  of  physical  science.  To  this 
field,  and  the  mighty  problems  it  opens  up,  we  propose  now  to 
give  our  serious  attention;  and  we  ask  the  reader  to  accompany 
us  with  all  the  powers  of  discrimination  he  can  summon,  as  the 
task  even  of  grasping  the  problems  involved,  after  they  are  met 
and  explained,  is  an  immense  one. 

We  say,  first,  that,  while  a  property  of  a  body  is  not  a  force  or 
any  form  of  energy  in  the  true  sense  of  these  terms,  yet  its  ex- 
istence as  a  condition,  quality,  or  characteristic  of  a  body  is  al- 
ways an  effect  of  one  or  many  forms  of  substantial  force.  Thus 
elasticity,  for  example,  is  the  name  of  a  certain  property  of 
bodies,  as  the  result  chiefly  of  the  form  of  force  commonly 
known  as  cohesive  attraction,  and  by  which  the  particles  or 
smallest  conceivable  portions  of  a  body  are  not  only  held  together 
when  united,  but  by  which  also  they  were  originally  placed  to- 
gether under  certain  laws  and  arrangements  at  present  unknown 
to  man. 

Indeed,  we  are  not  at  all  satisfied  with  the  term  cohesive  force, 
as  applied  to  the  various  natural  operations  not  readily  attribu- 
table to  some  other  recognized  form  of  force.  The  term  is  not 
broad  enough  to  include  the  original  construction  of  bodies,  the 
arranging  of  their  particles,  the  rearranging  of  them  into  a 
more  contracted  or  expanded  form,  etc.,  etc.  Constructive 


COHESION.  79 

Q.  43.  Is  elasticity  primarily  a  property  of  matter,  or 
an  immaterial  force-element  of  Nature? 

A.  As  already  stated,  it  is  a  peculiar  property  in  mat- 
ter, or  a  fruit  of  cohesion  asserting  its  conditional  power 
over  matter.  Without  the  constructive  energy  of  co- 
hesive force  in  arranging  the  particles  of  an  elastic  body, 
and  the  continued  static  persistence  of  its  energy  in  main- 
taining them  in  such  relation  to  each  other,  no  such 
property  could  exist  in  matter. 

Q.  44.  To  what  extent,  if  any,  may  the  force-element 
of  cohesion  be  concentrated  at  a  given  point,  and  thus 
augment  its  power  to  withstand  extrinsic  or  counter- 
force? 

force  would  be  a  more  generally  appropriate  term,  making  it  to 
include  cohesion,  adhesion,  rearrangement  of  bodies,  chemism, 
etc.  Then  when  destruction  or  disintegration  of  a  body  takes 
place  by  any  form  of  force,  the  cohesive  form  of  this  construct- 
ive force  would  be  destroyed,  or,  what  is  better,  converted  into 
heat  or  some  other  form  of  force,  as  when  a  piece  of  metal  is 
pulverized  into  impalpable  dust.  The  bulk  of  cohesion  in  such 
a  case  disappears,  to  be  regenerated  from  the  force-element  of 
nature  by  the  action  of  heat,  as  when  this  dust  is  melted  into  a 
liquid,  and  then  cooled  into  a  solid  mass.  When  a  chem- 
ical compound  is  produced,  this  general  constructive  force 
acts  as  chemism,  and  when  the  chemical  union  is  destroyed 
by  heat  or  electricity,  such  constructive  force  is  relegated 
to  the  force-element,  to  be  regenerated  as  chemism  when 
the  separated  substances  are  again  united,  either  with  each 
other  or  with  some  other  substance  in  practical  chemical 
proportions.  But  we  use  cohesive  force  at  present,  as  we  have 
done  in  the  past,  with  many  grains  of  mental  reservation,  en- 
tering this  mild  protest  as  a  part"  of  the  record  of  Substan- 
tialism. 

Returning,  then,  to  the  cause  of  the  elastic  property  of  bodies, 
we  say  that  without  the  original  constructive  energy  of  this 
force  of  cohesion  in  arranging  the  particles  of  the  elastic  body, 
and  the  continued  static  persistence  of  its  energy  in  maintain- 
ing them,  no  such  property  as  that  of  elasticity  could  exist  in 
matter,  nor  could  the  opposite  property  of  inelasticity  exist 
either. — Dr.  Hall,  in  Scientific  Arena,  Vol.  I.,  p.  29. 


80  THE   SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

A.     Cohesive  force  cannot  permeate  matter  to  a  de- 
gree of  strength  or  energy  beyond  a  certain  limit. 
Q.  45.     What  is  the  point  or  law  of  its  limitation? 
A.     The  limit  of  the  ability  of  matter  to  receive  it. 

Q.  46.  Does  a  body  of  matter  in  which  there  is  the 
property  of  elasticity  receive  more  cohesive  force  than  an 
inelastic  body  of  matter? 

A.  Like  a  well- arranged  fort  for  the  defense  of  a  city 
elastic  bodies  have  not  only  the  ability  to  receive,  but 
also  the  peculiar  power  to  retain  and  utilize  the  force- 
element  of  cohesion  under  the  sudden  shock  or  constant 
pressure  of  the  extrinsic  or  opposing  force. 

Q.  47.  Is  the  retentive  ability  of  elastic  bodies  lim- 
ited? 

A.  It  is  limited,  and  may  be  overpowered  by  supe- 
rior extrinsic  force  mechanically  or  chemically  applied. 

Q.  48.  When  an  elastic  cord  is  stretched  beyond  the 
point  limiting  the  cohesive  force  which  it  contains,  what 
is  the  result? 

A.  If  the  cord  at  every  point  or  place  be  equally  con- 
stituted in  uniform  size,  the  same  elements  of  matter 
with  the  particles  thereof  similarly  related  in  each  and 
every  section  of  the  line,  the  same  temperature  prevailing 
in  every  part  of  the  cord,  and  around  it  from  end  to  end, 
and  the  extrinsic  stretching  force  be  applied  without  vio- 
lent suddenness,  so  as  to  distribute  such  force  equally 
along  all  sections  of  the  line,  and  the  extrinsic  force,  thus 
applied,  augmented  gently  and  gradually  until  it  over- 
comes the  cohesive  force  within,  the  result  will  be  a 
breaking  of  the  cord  at  the  same  instant  at  every  lineal 
point,  and  the  fragments  of  disintegration  will  be  ex- 
actly equal  to  the  number  of  material  particles  lineally 
contiguous  from  end  to  end  in  the  center  of  the  line. 

Q.  49.  What  would  be  the  result  in  the  absence  of 
one  or  more  of  the  above-named  conditions? 


COHESION.  81 

A.  If  either  the  power  of  endurance  or  the  force  ap- 
plied be  unequal  at  every  point,  the  cord  would  break 
either  at  the  weakest  place  or  place  under  the  greatest 
degree  of  applied  force. 

Q.  50.  What  would  become  of  the  force  retained  in 
the  fragments  or  pieces  of  the  cord  ? 

A.  Its  first  duty  would  be  to  care  for  the  wounded. 
This  would  be  done  by  restoring  each  piece  to  its  former 
condition. 

Q.  51.  What,  then,  would  become  of  the  force  over- 
powered at  the  snapping  point? 

A.  A  small  portion  at  that  point  would  be  liberated, 
or  excused  from  immediate  duty,  and  fall  back  to  head- 
quarters. Just  as  the  spirit  of  man,  when  the  silver  cord 
is  loosed  by  the  shock  or  constant  strain  of  mortality,  re- 
turns to  the  Fountain  of  its  being — "the  God  who  gave 
it" — to  await  further  orders,  so  will  any  force,  or  any 
portion  of  a  force,  when  liberated  by  temporary  defeat  in 
the  elemental  warfare  of  Nature,  fall  back  to  the  pri- 
mordial fountain  or  reservoir  of  all  force-elements,  to 
await  further  orders  from  the  God  of  nature,  who  is  at 
the  same  time  the  commander-in-chief  in  the  general 
campaign  of  forces  and  counter- forces  throughout  the 
universe  in  the  gradual  solution  of  the  grand  central 
problem  thereof, 


CHAPTER  Y. 

MAGNETISM. 

QUESTION  1.     What  is  magnetism? 

ANSWER.     It  is  one  of  the  force-elements  of  Nature. 

Q.  2.     In  what  does  it  differ  from  cohesion? 

A.  Cohesive  force  joins  contiguous  particles  of  homo- 
geneous matter  concretely  together,  and  holds  them  in 
the  latter  relation  until  it  is  neutralized  by  some  superior 
force,  as  seen  in  Chapter  IV.  Magnetism  draws  separate 
bodies  of  matter  together,  and  holds  them  in  contiguity 
until  the  expiration  of  its  term  of  service  at  any  particu- 
lar point  in  the  wise  and  systematic  economy  of  Nature. 

Q.  3.  In  what  other  respect  do  cohesion  and  magnet- 
ism differ? 

A.     In  their  modes  of  laying  hold,  of  matter. 

Q.  4.  What  are  their  different  modes  respectively  of 
seizing  and  clinging  to  material  substance? 

A.  Cohesion  seizes  matter  directly;  magnetism  lays 
hold  of  matter  through  the  medium  of  its  own  reciprocal. 

Q.  5.  Is  it  true  that  a  magnet  attracts  a  piece  of 
iron  ? 

A.     It  is  not  strictly  true  in  science. 

Q.  6.  How,  then,  does  it  pull  the  iron  toward  its  em- 
bracing arms? 

A.  As  in  a  case  of  pure  and  genuine  courtship,  inter- 
vening distance  is  diminished  by  sympathy. 

Q.  7.  Is  there  really  such  a  thing  as  sympathy  exist- 
ing in  some  of  the  force-elements  of  Nature? 


MAGNETISM.  83 

A.  Indeed  there  is,  and  also,  of  necessity,  the  possi- 
bility of  repulsion.* 

Q.  8.  Is  this  sympathy  directly  between  the  magnet 
and  the  pieces  of  iron? 

A.  It  is  not.  It  is  rather  in  and  between  magnetic 
force  or  forces  potentially  or  actually  resident  in  both  the 
magnet  and  the  distant  piece  of  iron. 

Q.  9.  How,  then,  are  the  two  distinct  and  separate 
bodies  of  matter  brought  together? 

A.  When  these  sympathetic  and  reciprocal  forces  ap- 
proach each  other  with  a  tendency  toward  elemental 
union,  they  carry  with  them  the  bodies  of  material  in 
which  they  respectively  reside  and  over  which  they  have 
a  limited  control,  f 

*  While  every  entity  in  the  physical  domain  of  being  is  a  sub- 
stance, it  is  also,  relatively,  a  shadow  of  better  things  to  come, 
according  to  the  law  of  continuity  in  the  one  organic  universe 
of  God.  There  is  an  order  of  sympathy  which  serves  the  pur- 
pose of  sex  in  plants.  The  lower  animals  woo  their  mates  in 
their  unconscious  obedience  to  the  behests  of  brutish  sympathy. 
In  human  kind  a  higher  magnetic  force,  or 

"  love  will  find  its  way 
Through  paths  where  wolves  would  fear  to  .prey." 

The  highest  imagery  of  Revelation  represents  a  second  process 
of  sympathetic  attraction  between  the  Redeemer  and  his  spouse 
— the  Church,  which  will  be  consummated  finally  when  they 
meet  in  the  Millennial  air;  why,  then,  after  witnessing  the 
demonstrations  which  magnetism  affords,  should  we  for  one 
moment  deny  the  existence  of  a  low  and  prophetic  order  of 
sympathy  in  the  inorganic  or  physical  sphere  of  existence,  even 
though  its  manifestations  and  purposes  are  less  apparent  than  in 
the  biological  domain  of  being  ? 

t  We  say  in  common  parlance  that  a  magnet  attracts  a  piece 
of  iron,  and  that  the  earth  attracts  a  stone.  Neither  is  strictly 
and  scientifically  true.  As  just  hinted,  it  is  the  active  force  of 
the  substantial  magnetism  radiating  from  the  magnetic  poles 
which  seizes  by  sympathy  the  latent  magnetic  force  residing  in 
metal  of  a  similar  quality  with  the  magnet  (it  does  not  affect  the 


84  THE  SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

Q.  10.  Can  the  truth  of  the  above  assertion  be  con- 
clusively proven? 

A.  It  is  above  the  need  of  any  testimony  admissible 
merely  through  the  organs  of  sense  to  the  perceptive 
powers  of  the  mind. 

Q.  11.     How  then  can  the  alleged  fact  be  known? 
A.     It    is    demonstrable    to    and    clearly   cognizable 
through  the  higher  faculty  of  reason. 

material  metal  itself),  thus  drawing  the  two  bodies  together  by 
cords  of  sympathetic  force.  The  earth,  in  like  manner,  only 
draws  a  stone  downward  by  the  substantial  cords  of  gravital 
force  from  the  earth  interlocking  sympathetically  with  the  same 
substantial  force  centering  in  small  quantity  also  in  the  pebble. 
If  by  any  means  this  almost  infinitesimal  quantity  of  gravital 
force  in  any  body  of  the  metal  could  be  neutralized  or  destroyed, 
the  earth's  gravity  would  not  act  upon  such  metal  in  the  slight- 
est degree  to  cause  it  to  fall,  any  more  than  magnetic  force  can 
attract  copper  or  other  metal  which  contains  no  latent  magnet- 
ism for  it  to  take  hold  of.  Hence  this  is  exactly  the  reason  why 
the  piece  of  copper  or  silver  falls  slowly  through  a  dense  at- 
mosphere of  magnetic  force.  Such  force  tends  to  neutralize  the 
small  quantity  of  gravital  force  as  it  resides  in  copper  and  silver 
only,  owing  to  some  unknown  quality  of  those  two  metals,  thus 
partially  breaking  the  sympathetic  hold  of  the  earths  gravity. 
It  is  not  the  obstruction  caused  by  the  dense  collection  of  mag- 
netism which  impedes  the  fall  of  the  piece  of  copper  on  the 
principle  of  a  body's  settling  through  "  mud,"  as  Sir  William 
Thomson  supposed,  but  its  neutralizing  effect  upon  the  gravity 
within  the  copper,  thus  rendering  it  unfit,  so  to  speak,  for  the 
gravity  of  the  earth  to  take  hold  of.  In  evidence  of  the  simple 
correctness  of  this  position,  that  gravity  is  partially  neutralized 
in  a  piece  of  copper  while  within  a  dense  magnetic  atmosphere, 
weigh  it  in  that  position,  and  it  will  be  found  to  weigh  almost 
nothing.  A  child  might  thus  lift  a  ton  of  copper  with  one  finger 
by  simply  bringing  the  two  poles  of  a  magnet,  powerful  enough, 
on  the  two  opposite  sides  of  the  mass  of  copper,  thus  neutraliz- 
ing its  inherent  gravity,  and  thereby  destroying  the  hold  of  the 
earth's  gravity  upon  it. — Dr.  Hall,  in  the  Microcosm,  Vol.  IV., 
p.  28. 


MAGNETISM.  85 

Q.  12.     Can  it  be  illustrated? 

A.  It  can.  For  example:  A  gentleman  and  a  lady 
may  attract  each  other  in  the  sphere  of  pure  and  unadul- 
terated love,  but  it  would  be  neither  true  in  science  nor 
honorable  in  contemplated  matrimony  for  either  of  them 
to  think  or  speak  of  attracting  each  other's  iron  or  gold. 
When  they  legitimately  attract  each  other,  or  the  image 
which  each  one  begets  in  the  other,  or,  to  speak  more 
scientifically,  when  the  mutual  and  reciprocal  life-force, 
resident  complementally  in  them  both,  attracts  or  pulls 
them  together  in  virtue  of  the  distinction  of  sex,  the 
effect  of  such  sympathetic  attraction  is  not  only*  a  union 
of  hearts  and  hands,  but  also,  as  a  consequence,  a  domes- 
tic community  of  any  material  property  or  goods  pos- 
sessed respectively  by  the  parties  before  the  interesting 
pulling  process  began. 

Q.  13.  What  is  the  more  scientific  term  for  this  mys- 
terious sympathy  in  the  domain  of  chemistry  and  phys- 
ics? 

A.     Affinity. 

Q.  14.  Does  this  affinity,  or  complemental  property 
of  interlockular  force  exist  in  all  the  force-elements  of 

Nature? 

A.  Its  presence  is  more  marked  and  manifest  in  mag- 
netism than  in  some  of  the  other  force-elements  of  which 
we  have  a  partial  knowledge. 

Q.  15.  Why  is  it  not  as  obviously  present,  and  its 
manifestations  equally  apparent  in  all  the  forces? 

A.  Because  the  God  and  source  of  all  power  and 
energy  has  different  missions  for  his  different  elemental 
servants  in  the  wise  and  prudent  economy  of  Nature. 

Q.  16.  Are  all  bodies  of  matter  equally  subject  to 
magnetic  force? 


86  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

A.  They  are  not.  Matter  is  governed  by  magnetism 
only  to  the  extent  that  it  is  able  to  receive  it. 

Q.  17.  But  is  there  not  static  magnetism  in  all  bodies 
of  matter? 

A.  Static  force  pervades  all  space,  even  that  space 
which  is  occupied  by  matter. 

Q.  18.     Is  force  then  generated  or  developed? 
A.     Under  favorable   conditions  it  is  liberated,  gen- 
erated or  developed. 

Q.  19.     From  what  is  it  developed? 
A.     Any  distinct  form  of  force  is  developed  from  the 
general  reservoir  of  all  force-elements  in  Nature. 

Q.  20.     Does  Substantialism,  then,  teach  that  there  is 
static  force  in  everything  and  everywhere? 
A.     It  so  teaches. 

Q.  551.  Is  not  force  therefore  omnipresent  in  the  sense 
that  that  incommunicable  attribute  is  predicable  of 
Deity? 

A.  Finite  or  created  force  is  under  the  general  cate- 
gory of  the  finite,  conditioned  and  limited  order  of  being, 
even  though  the  finite  mind  of  man  is  bewildered  in  its 
fruitless  attempts  to  fix  the  bounds  thereof. 

Q.  22.     Is  magnetic  force  a  substance? 
A.     It  is  just  as  really  a  substance  as  the  matter  which 
it  permeates  and  controls. 

Q.  23.  How  may  the  substantiality  of  magnetic  force 
be  made  to  appear  as  a  scientific  fact  beyond  the  attempt 
of  a  rational  contradiction? 

A.  It  has  already  been  demonstrated  to  the  faculty 
of  reason  in  the  unprejudiced  mind  by  the  universally 
admitted  fact  that  magnetism  can  lift  a  body  of  matter 
at  a  distance  from  the  magnet. 


MAGNETISM.  87 

Q.  24.  But  is  not  the  weight  thus  lifted,  raised  up 
by  the  unsubstantial  rays  of  magnetic  influence? 

A.  It  is  impossible  to  conceive  of  such  an  achieve- 
ment, except  where  the  mind  is  controlled  by  the  "  influ- 
ence "  of  unscientific  hocus-pocus.* 

Q.  25.  May  not  the  pulling  be  accomplished  by  mo- 
lecular vibration,  without  any  substantial  means  of  con- 
tact or  connection  between  the  magnet  and  the  distant 
piece  of  iron? 

A.  The  whole  miserable  theory  of  molecular  vibra- 
tion, as  generally  employed  in  current  teachings  of  phys- 
ics, is  as  untenable  as  it  is  ridiculous,  f 

*  If  magnetism  were  not  a  real  substance,  it  could  not  lift  a 
piece  of  metal  bodily  at  a  distance  from  the  magnet,  any  more 
than  our  hand  could  lift  a  weight  from  the  floor  without  some 
substantial  connection  between  the  two.  It  is  a  self-evident 
truism  as  an  axiom  in  mechanics,  that  no  body  can  move  or  dis 
place  another  body  at  a  distance  without  a  real,  substantial  me- 
dium connecting  the  two  through  which  the  result  is  accom- 
plished, otherwise  it  would  be  a  mechanical  effect  without  a 
cause— a  self-evident  absurdity  in  philosophy.  Hence,  the  force 
of  magnetism  is  a  real,  substantial  entity. — Dr.  Hali,  in  the 
Arena,  Vol.  I.,  p.  18. 

f  And  that  real  thing  which  causes  the  motion  of  a  body  for- 
ward, as  in  the  case  of  an  armature,  cannot  be  the  vibration  of 
the  molecules  of  the  medium  which  fills  the  space  between  the 
two  bodies  thus  separated.  Mere  vibration  of  a  medium  cannot 
pull  or  push  a  body  at  all.  At  most  such  vibration  could  only 
cause  the  body  to  tremble.  As  well  talk  of  pulling  a  balloon  to 
the  earth  by  causing  an  atmospheric  tremor,  or  of  pulling  a  boat 
to  the  shore  by  causing  a  tremor  among  the  molecules  of  the 
water!  Indeed,  modern  science,  with  its  prodigious  disclosures, 
actually  proposes  to  pull  the  boat  through  the  water  alone  by 
the  molecular  tremor  of  the  shore,  and  that,  too,  without  any 
force  to  make  the  shore  vibrate.  A  magnet,  Sir  William  Thom- 
son tells  us,  will  pull  a  bar  of  iron  from  a  distance  through  a 
perfect  vacuum  (or  without  any  intervening  medium)  alone  by 
the  molecular  tremor  of  the  magnet  and  without  any  force  to 


88  THE  SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

Q.  26.     Is  magnetic  force  an  immaterial  substance? 
A.     It  is  just  as  immaterial  as  it  is  real,  and  just  as 
real  as  matter  itself. 

Q.  27.  What  proof  can  be  given  that  magnetism  is 
not  matter? 

A.  The  best  and  most  incontrovertible  evidence  of  its 
immateriality  is  in  the  fact  that  it  passes  unimpeded 
through  the  most  impenetrable  and  impervious  bodies  of 
matter.  * 

Q.  28.  What  kinds  of  material  bodies  are,  by  common 
consent,  classed  among  the  most  impervious? 

*  If  magnetism  were  not  an  immaterial  substance,  then  any 
practically  imporous  body  intervening  between  the  magnet  and 
the  attracted  object  would,  to  some  extent  at  least,  impede  the 
passage  of  the  magnetic  current,  which  it  does  not  do.  If  mag- 
netism were  a  very  refined  or  attenuated  form  of  matter,  and  if 
it  thus  depended  for  its  passage  through  other  material  bodies 
upon  their  imperceptible  pores,  then,  manifestly,  some  difference 
in  the  freedom  of  its  passage,  and  in  the  consequent  attractive 
force  of  the  distant  magnet  should  result  by  great  difference  in 
the  porosity  of  the  different  bodies  tested,  as  would  be  the  case, 
for  example,  in  forcing  wind  through  wire  netting  having  larger 
or  smaller  interstices,  and  consequently  offering  greater  or  less 
resistance.  Whereas,  in  the  case  of  this  magnetic  substance,  no 
difference  whatever  results  in  the  energy  of  its  mechanical  pull 
on  a  distant  piece  of  iron,  however  many  or  few  of  the  prac- 
tically imporous  sheets  of  glass,  rubber,  or  whatever  other  mate- 
rial body  be  made  to  intervene,  or  if  no  substance  whatever  but 
the  air  is  interposed,  or  if  the  test  be  made  in  a  perfect  vacuum. 
The  pull  is  always  with  precisely  the  same  force,  and  will  move 
the  suspended  piece  of  iron  at  the  same  distance  away  from  it 
in  each  and  every  case,  however  refined  and  delicate  may  be  the 
instruments  by  which  the  tests  are  measured. — Dr.  Hall,  in 
Arena,  Vol.  L,  p.  18. 

make  the  magnet  tremble.  Why  not,  then,  pull  a  steamship  to 
its  mooring  without  a  rope,  by  simply  making  the  wharf  trem- 
ble, or  by  letting  it  tremble  without  any  cause?  Nonsense!— 
Rev,  F.  Hanilin,  D.  D.,  Microcosm,  Vol.  V,,  p.  98, 


MAGNETISM. 

A.     Glass  is  among  the  most  impervious. 

Q.  29.  Will  magnetism  pass  through  a  solid  plate  of 
glass? 

A.  Glass  is  no  impediment  or  obstruction  m  the  way 
of  magnetic  force. 

Q.  30.  But  may  not  the  magnetic  force  pass  around 
the  edges  of  the  plate  of  glass  in  such  a  cunning,  crafty 
way  as  to  deceive  the  most  skillful  experimenter,  and 
thus  attract  its  object  on  a  curved  line,  or  on  a  line  with 
angles  more  or  less  acute? 

A.  Magnetic  force  is  neither  materialistic  in  its  phi- 
losophy nor  unscrupulous  in  its  methods.  It  therefore 
never  skulks  from  the  direct  line  to  the  point  at  issue, 
neither  does  it  fail  to  grapple  fairly  with  its  object  at  the 
end  of  the  line. 

Q.  31.  Will  magnetic  force  lay  hold  of  distant  parti- 
cles or  pieces  of  iron  when  both  the  magnet  and  the  iron 
are  shut  up  in  different,  distant  bottles  closed  with 
tightly  fitting  stoppers,  sealed  and  immersed  in  water? 

A.  Just  as  directly  and  effectually  as  though  no 
material  substance  surrounded  either  one  or  intervened 
between  the  two. 

Q.  32.  But  does  not  magnetism  pass  as  a  material 
substance  through  the  glass  by  virtue  of  the  porosity  of 
the  latter? 

A.  Glass  is  more  imporous  than  gold,  and  more  im- 
pervious to  material  substances  than  any  known  body  of 
matter. 

Q.  33.     But  is  it  absolutely  impervious? 

A.  It  is  so  much  so  that  any  substance  which  pene- 
trates, permeates,  and  passes  through  it  cannot  be  com- 
posed of  material  particles. 


90  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

Q.  34.  What  is  the  result  when  the  test  is  made  in  a 
vacuum? 

A.  The  result  is  the  same.  Neither  empty  space  nor 
mountains  of  matter  can  interfere  with  the  free  workings 
of  any  one  of  the  substantial  and  immaterial  force-ele- 
ments which  the  Personal,  Infinite  Fountain  of  all  force 
has  wisely  and  with  beneficent  design  ordained  and  dele- 
gated to  manipulate  and  manage  the  material  elements 
of  this  vast  universe  until  the  ultimate  meaning  thereof 
shall  fully  appear  to  its  rational  intelligences  when  the 
tremendous  tidal-waves  of  its  declarative  glory  are  finally 
rolled  back  to  the  throne  of  His  majestic  presence. 


CHAPTER  YI. 

GRAVITY.    . 

QUESTION  1.  What  does  Snbstantialism  teach  as  to 
the  nature  of  gravity? 

ANSWER.  The  Substantial  Philosophy  holds  and 
teaches  that  gravity,  like  cohesion  and  magnetism,  is  a 
force-element  in  Nature. 

Q.  2.     In  what  does  it  differ  from  cohesion? 

A.  Cohesion  unites  particles  of  matter  in  concrete 
mass;  gravity  draws  material  particles,  or  aggregations 
of  massed  particles  into  approximate  nearness  with  each 
other. 

Q.  3.  Does  gravital  force  assist  cohesion  in  the  per- 
formance of  its  work? 

A.  Where  gravity  ends  its  peculiar  mission  cohesion 
may  begin  its  work  upon  the  same  material;  e.  g.,  gravity 
pulls  the  melted  mineral  into  the  mold,  and  cohesion 
concretes  it  into  a  hard  body  or  mass. 

Q.  4.  But  do  not  the  several  particles  in  such  a  hard 
body  still  continue  to  attract  each  other  gra vitally? 

A.  There  is  gravital  force  between  material  particles 
wherever  located  and  however  distant  from  or  near  to 
each  other;  but  gravital  force  is  comparatively  inactive 
in  the  proper  sphere  of  cohesion. 

Q.  5.  In  what  particular  does  gravity  differ  from 
magnetism? 

A.  As  seen  in  Chap.  V.,  magnetism  involves  affinity: 
affinity  implies  sympathy,  even  as  sympathy  involves  the 


92  THE   SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

possibility   of   repulsion.     On   the   other   hand,   gravity 
never  acts  as  a  repellent. 

Q.  6.  But  does  not  gravity,  like  magnetism,  involve 
elemental  sympathy? 

A.  The  respective  gravital  forces  of  particles  in  dif- 
ferent bodies  interlock  sympathetically — it  however  in- 
volves no  possibility  of  repulsion  as  in  the  spheres  of 
magnetism  and  in  some  of  the  higher  spheres  of  biologi- 
cal being. 

Q.  7.  Why  does  not  gravital  sympathy  also  involve 
the  possibility  of  repulsion? 

A.  Because  gravity,  as  a  force-element,  is  not  so  high 
as  some  other  immaterial  entities  in  the  graduated  scale 
of  being. 

Q.  8.     Does  not  gravity  neutralize  other  forces?* 
A.     Under  certain  conditions  gravity  neutralizes  mag- 
netic force,  e.  g.,  when  the  piece  of  iron  or  copper  con- 
tains preponderant  gravital  force,  the  force  of  the  mag- 
net fails  to  lift  it  up. 

Q.  9.  May  not  gravital  force  be  neutralized  by  other 
forces? 

A.  Superior  magnetic  force,  or  force  in  a  greater 
degree  of  density  may  counteract  and  overcome  gravital 
force  and  lift  bodies  of  matter  from  the  earth,  f 

Q.  10.    Does  gravital  force  act  where  there  is  no  matter? 
A.     Where  there  is  no  matter  there  is  no  opportunity 
for  its  action. 

Q.  11.  But  does  not  gravity  therefore  depend  upon 
opportunity  for  its  existence? 

*  See  Dr.  Hall's  review  of  Sir  Wm.  Thomson. — Microcosm, 
Vol.  IV.,  p.  26. 

f  His  inability  to  seize  and  comprehend  this  truth  left  Sir 
Wm.  Thomson  unscientifically  swamped  in  his  "  thin  mud  "  dif 
ficulty.— See  the  Scientific  American  of  May  17th,  1884. 


GRAVITY.  93 

A.  It  only  depends  upon  opportunity  for  an  oppor- 
tunity to  act. 

Q.  12.  What  is  the  state  or  condition  of  gravity 
when  inactive? 

A.  Gravity,  like  all  other  forces  when  not  active,  is 
latent  or  static. 

Q.  13.  Is  there  gravity  in  heaven,  and  among  the 
angels  of  God? 

A.  It  is  probable  that  nearer  the  Fountain  the  purer 
the  stream. 

Q.  14.     Is  gravity  active  in  heaven? 

A.     Yes,  if  there  is. material  there  to  act  upon. 

Q.  15.     Who  discovered  gravity? 

A.  Dr.  A.  Wilford  Hall  discovered  its  real  character 
as  an  entitative  force-element. 

Q.  1G.  Did  not  Newton  first  make  the  great  dis- 
covery ? 

A.  Starting  with  some  of  the  secrets  vhich  Kepler 
had  extorted  from  the  bosom  of  Nature,  Sir  Isaac  New- 
ton discovered  Gravitation. 

Q.  17.     What  is  gravitation? 

A.     It  is  the  law  of  gravity's  action.* 

Q.  18.     What  is  law? 

A.  It  is  the  will  of  God  "on  earth  as  it  is  in  heaven," 
or  Heaven's  mode  of  operating  through  its  own  ordained 
forces. 

Q.  19.     Does  Law,  then,  differ  from  Force  ? 

*  "  The  natural  laws  originate  nothing,  sustain  nothing;  they 
are  merely  responsible  for  uniformity  in  sustaining  what  has 
been  originated  and  what  is  being  sustained.  They  are  modes 
of  operation,  therefore,  not  operators;  processes,  not  powers. 
....  Newton  did  not  discover  gravity — that  is  not  yet  discov- 
ered. [The  Caledonian  philosopher  had  not  "yet"  read  the 
"  Problem  of  Iluman  Life."]  He  discovered  its  law,  which  is 
gravitation,  but  that  tells  us  nothing  of  its  origin,  of  its  nature, 
or  of  its  cause." — Drummond's  "  Natural  Law,"  p.  5. 


94  THE   SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

A.     True  science  makes  a  distinction  between  the  two. 

Q.  20.     What  is  that  distinction? 

A.  Force,  under  God,  is  the  motor  power  of  the  uni- 
verse; law  is  the  mode  according  to  which  the  motor 
power  moves  the  vast  machinery.  Force  operates;  law 
is  the  eternally  and  internally  ordained  rule  of  its  opera- 
tion. 

Q.  21.  Did  Newton  formulate  to  perfection  all  the 
truths  involved  in  gravitation  ? 

A.  He  did  not.  It  is  as  impossible  for  science  as  it 
is  for  religion  to  have  an  infallible  human  pope.* 

*  Neither  was  Newton  infallible.  As  a  member  of  the  fallen 
family  of  man,  he  shared  the  infirmities  of  the  race.  Pope's 
couplet: 

"  Nature  and  Nature's  laws  lay  hid  in  night; 
God  said  *  Let  Newton  be,'  and  all  was  light," 

contains  more  English  pride  than  poetry,  and,  still,  more  poetry 
than  truth.  Though  born  on  Christmas  Day,  he  was  not  the 
light  of  the  world.  Although  the  "Principia"  is  a  master- 
piece of  mathematical  skill,  it  is  not  the  production  of  unerring 
wisdom.  It  contains  light  enough  to  make  darkness  distinctly 
visible.  The  above  expression  should  be  considered  as  a  flat- 
tering compliment  to  the  noblest  work  of  any  living  man. 
Newton's  great  mind  was  not  capable  of  supposing  that  the 
"  Principia  "  was  perfect,  and  that  it  would  need  no  revision  in 
the  progress  of  the  ages.  A  consciousness  of  its  defects  was 
probably  one  element  in  that  reluctance  which  inclined  him  to 
desire  a  suppression  of  its  further  publication.  Neither  is  there 
any  evidence  that  Halley,  in  assuming  the  financial  responsi- 
bility of  bringing  the  astounding  work  before  the  public,  looked 
upon  its  author  as  the  avatar  of  astronomical  science.  Such 
superstition  enters  a  more  modern  temple:  such  idolaters  pour 
out  the  oblations  of  their  sycophancy  in  a  more  modern  wor- 
ship. They  fill  the  front  pews  of  the  scholastic  Church;  and 
their  hands  go  up  with  holy  horror  at  the  mere  mention  of 
"  Newton's  oversights."  They  consider  it  no  sacrilege  to  revise 
the  authorized  version  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  correct  the 
"oversights"  of  King  James' translators.  They  also  seem  to 
think  it  eminently  proper  to  change  the  English  text  of  God's 


GRAVITY.  95 

Q.  22.  Why  did  he  fail  to  carry  his  principle  to 
greater  perfection? 

A.  Partially  because  he  had  failed  to  discover  the  true 
character  of  gravity. 

Q.  23.  But  did  not  Newton  in  his  letter  to  Bentley 
deny  that  gravity  was  something  "innate,  inherent  and 
essential  to  matter  "?* 

*  Because  that  mysterious  something  called  gravitation, 
which  pulls  a  weight  toward  the  earth,  can  neither  be  seen, 
heard,  felt,  tasted,  nor  smelt,  it  is  no  proof  that  gravity  is  not  a 
substance  as  really  and  truly  as  is  water,  iron,  or  even  platinum, 
the  heaviest  of  all  known  substances,  only  the  substantial  cor- 
puscles or  attenuated  threads  of  gravity  are  of  such  a  nature 
that  we  cannot  recognize  them  except  through  our  higher  fac- 
ulties of  reason,  by  what  they  accomplish.  The  German  laborer 
who  placed  his  bucket  beneath  a  dripping  rock  to  catch  water, 
was  astonished  when  he  undertook  to  carry  it  home.  He  could 
neither  lift  it  nor  stir  it,  with  all  the  strength  of  his  arm.  Yet 
he  saw  nothing  to  cause  such  a  result  except  the  water  the 
bucket  contained.  It  could  not  have  frozen  to  the  ground  for 
it  was  a  hot  summer's  day.  Yet  something  held  it  down  with 
immovable  but  invisible  power.  The  secret  was  soon  revealed. 
The  bucket  was  nearly  full  of  quicksilver  which  had  dripped 

Word  in  order  to  make  it  read  more  in  harmony  with  those 
most  ancient  extant  manuscripts  recently  discovered  by  the 
same  spirit  of  search  and  research  which  has  since  blessed  the 
human  family  with  the  "  Problem  of  Human  Life."  Some  of 
them  are  possibly  ready  to  march  with  Robertson  Smith  in  his 
crusade  of  criticism  upon  the  very  subject-matter  in  the  oracles 
of  the  Most  High;  or,  perchance,  swell  the  ranks  of  Beecher- 
onean  vandalism  with  a  determination  to  either  dry  the  fount- 
ain or  dam  the  stream  of  God's  Revelation  to  man;  but  a 
critical  examination  of  Newton's  astronomical  calculations  is 
too  sacrilegious  for  their  pious  toleration.  While  they  cannon- 
ade the  Pentateuch,  they  canonize  the  "  Principia."  and  swear, 
with  an  idolatrous  veneration  for  the  bones  of  a  fallible  man, 
that  Wilford  Hall  shall  not  stand  in  the  assembly  of  the  right- 
eous, because,  forsooth,  he  has  dared  to  question  the  iinmacu 
late  conception  of  Newton's  "  yard -stick," 


96  THE  SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

A.  He  did;  yet  to  tell  what  a  thing  is  not  is  some- 
thing different  from  discovering  and  defining  its  positive 
character. 

Q.  24.  What  was  Newton's  most  fundamental  and 
fatal  oversight  concerning  the  nature  of  gravity? 

from  the  rock  with  the  water.  Had  this  quicksilver  still  re- 
mained invisible,  after  the  covering  of  water  had  been  removed, 
and  had  it  been  even  unobservable  by  any  other  of  the  senses,  or 
could  the  hand  have  been  passed  through  it  without  feeling  it 
in  the  slightest  degree,  it  would  still  have  been  none  the  less  a 
real  substance  so  long  as  its  effects  were  the  same  in  holding  the 
bucket  to  the  earth.  We  must  therefore  judge  of  the  substantial 
or  entitative  nature  of  anything  of  which  the  mind  can  form  a 
concept,  not  by  its  recognizable  or  unrecognizable  qualities 
through  the  direct  evidence  of  our  senses,  but  by  its  demonstra- 
ble effects  upon  other  and  known  substances  under  the  exercise 
of  our  rational  faculties  in  judging,  analyzing,  comparing,  etc. 
Thus  gravity  is  a  substance  as  really  and  truly  as  was  the  invis- 
ible mercury  in  the  bucket,  but  its  nature  is  such  that  it  is  hid- 
den from  all  our  senses.  Our  hands  can  pass  through  it  without 
feeling  it.  It  permeates  and  passes  through  all  substances  that 
may  intervene  between  the  earth  and  a  suspended  weight,  and 
when  the  cord  that  supports  the  weight  is  severed,  the  invisible 
and  intangible  threads  of  this  all- pervading  substance  seize  each 
molecule  of  the  weight  and  pull  it  to  the  earth. 

Those  who  are  thus  forced  to  admit  the  substantial  nature  of 
magnetic  rays,  have  stepped  into  a  new  world,  filled  with  new 
entities  and  verities.  They  are  mentally  and  logically  compelled 
at  once  to  look  upon  gravity  in  the  same  light.  Sir  Isaac  New- 
ton caught  a  glimpse  of  this  new  world  of  incorporeal  entities 
as  he  contemplated  the  law  of  gravitation.  In  a  letter  to  Bent- 
ley  he  says: 

"That  gravity  should  be  innate,  inherent,  and  essential  to 
matter,  so  that  one  body  may  act  on  another  at  a  distance  through 
a  vacuum,  without  the  mediation  of  anything  else  by  and 
through  which  their  action  and  force  may  be  conveyed  from  one 
to  the  other,  is  to  me  so  great  an  absurdity  that  1  believe  no  man 
who  has  in  philosophical  matters  a  competent  faculty  of  think- 
ing, can  ever  fall  into  it." 

The  greatest  of  philosophical  reasoners,  though  inspired  with 


GRAVITY.  97 

A.  He  failed  to  discover  and  recognize  it  as  u  sub- 
stance. He  denied  the  substantiality  of  everything  be- 
yond the  range  and  testimony  of  the  senses. 

Q.  25.  How  else  than  by  the  bodily  senses  can  force 
be  discovered? 

A.  Just  as  Xewton  discovered  gravitation  or  law — by 
rightly  exercising  the  royal  faculty  of  reason. 

Q.  26.  But  did  he  not  hold  that  light  was  a  real  sub- 
stance ? 

A.     This  question  is  answered  in  Chap.  IX. 

Q.  27.  Was  Newton's  oversight  as  to  the  nature  of 
gravity  followed  by  oversights  in  his  great  work  of  for- 
mulating the  laws  of  gravitation?  If  so,  what  were  they? 

A.  The  above  questions  cannot  be  satisfactorily  an- 
swered until  gravity,  as  now  viewed  in  the  better  light  of 
the  Substantial  Philosophy,  is  permitted  to  assist  in  the 
interpretation  of  the  law  of  gravitation. 

Q.  28.  Does  Substantialism  differ  from  Newton  as  to 
the  law  of  squared  distance  inverse? 

A.  The  principal  disagreement  is  as  to  the  proper 
place  of  beginning  the  calculation,  or  in  the  adoption  of 
the  proper  unit  of  measure. 

Q.  29.  Have  mathematicians  outside  of  the  Substan- 
tial School  disagreed  among  themselves  as  to  what  New- 
ton meant  to  teach  concerning  the  proper  unit  of  meas- 
ure? 

this  hrilliant  dash  of  intellect,  did  not,  however,  take  advantage 
of  such  a  sparkling  revelation,  and,  by  dint  of  logic,  carry  it  out 
to  magnetism,  electricity,  life,  mind,  spirit— even  up  to  the  sub- 
stantial throne  of  the  Deity  Himself.  He  entered  the  portals  of 
the  new  dominion  of  philosophical  thought,  but  unfortunately 
stopped  there,  and  spent  his  life  in  contemplating  and  eluci- 
dating the  substantial  wonders  and  all-pervading  effects  of  that 
mighty  entitative  force  which  his  own  genius  had  formulated, 
if  it  had  not  discovered.—"  Problem  of  Human  Life,'*  p.  29. 


98  THE   SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

A.  A  recent  discussion  upon  the  subject  has  made 
such  disagreement  most  manifest.* 

Q.  30.     Is  gravity  a  substance? 

A.  It  is  just  as  really  a  substance  as  the  bodies  of 
matter  which  it  draws  together. 

Q.  31.  Could  it  not  pull  bodies  together  without 
being  a  substance? 

A.  Substance  cannot  be  seized  by  anything  which  is 
not  substantial,  or,  if  it  could  be  so  seized,  the  unsub- 
stantial nonentity  of  which  the  mind  can  form  no  ra- 
tional concept  would  have  no  power  to  draw  different 
bodies  of  material  together. 

Q.  32.  But  it  is  claimed  that  the  human  mind  can 
form  no  rational  concept  of  the  Infinite,  and  that  Reve- 
lation teaches  the  existence  of  an  all-powerful  God  who 
upholds  all  things  in  their  proper  relation  to  each  other. 

*  We  have  noticed:  (a.)  The  several  vindicators  of  Newton 
have  disagreed  among  themselves  as  to  just  what  the  great 
astronomer  meant  to  teach  in  his  gravitation  law  of  squared- 
distance-in verse,  as  applied  to  the  question  of  the  moon's  di- 
vergence from  a  given  tangent,  and  the  double  displacement  of 
both  earth  and  moon  by  virtue  of  reciprocal  attraction,  (b.) 
They  have  not  agreed  as  to  the  best  line  of  defense  against  the 
assaults  of  the  Microcosm.  General  symptoms  of  lunacy  are 
the  only  common  badges  of  their  mathematical  brotherhood, 
(c.)  They  have  contradicted  themselves,  and  changed  both  their 
terms  and  tactics  when  met  by  truth  and  valor,  and  pressed  to 
close  engagement,  (d.)  They  have  conceded  several  points 
which  they  had  warmly  disputed  in  the  beginning  of  the  dis- 
cussion, (e.)  They  have  blown  the  breath  of  suspicion  upon  the 
dogma  of  Newtonian  infallibility  by  charging  the  great  astrono- 
mer with  using  a  "  rough  measurement  "  in  the  service  of  "  pure 
mathematics."  (/.)  They  have  thus,  consequently,  played  the 
pitiable  poltroon  when  it  was  found  necessary  to  forsake  their 
master  in  order,  if  possible,  to  save  themselves  from  inevitable 
defeat  in  the  last  ditch  of  desperation. — The  author,  in  Micro- 
cosm, Vol.  II. ,  p.  239. 


GRAVITY.  99 

How  can  this  objection  be  answered  without  an  abandon- 
ment of  the  fundamental  teachings  of  Substantialism? 

A.  The  objection  is  met,  First:  God,  is  himself 
substantial  in  the  essence  of  His  being.  Second:  Be- 
cause God  is  a  substantial  being  the  human  mind  can 
form  a  concept,  or  rather  is  intuitively  possessed  of  an 
innate  idea  of  Deity,  or  God  consciousness,  as  already 
shown  in  Chapter  I. 

Q.  33.     Can  a  man  then  comprehend  God? 

A.     He  cannot.     Neither  can  he  comprehend  gravity. 

Q.  34.     Is  gravity  a  material  substance? 

A.  It  is  not.  If  it  were  such,  it  would  have  the 
property  of  inertia  like  all  matter,  and  consequently 
could  not  move  itself,  much  less  that  which  is  not  itself. 

Q.  35.     Is  it  then  an  immaterial  substance  ? 

A.     It  is. 

Q.  3G.     What  is  the  best  evidence  of  its  immateriality? 

A.  The  fact  that  it  passes  unimpeded  through  all 
material  substances,  no  matter  what  may  be  their  prop- 
erties, such  as  impenetrability,  imporosity  and  impervi- 
ousness. 

Q.  37.     Does  gravity  exist  in  all  kinds  of  matter? 

A.     It  does. 

Q.  38.  Is  it  resident  in  equal  quantities  in  all  bodies 
of  matter  of  equal  size  and  solidity? 

A.  It  is  not.  Glass  is  more  solid,  because  less  porous 
than  gold,  and  yet  gold  contains  more  gravital  force  than 
glass. 

Q.  39.     Why  is  this  the  case? 

A.  For  the  same  reason  that  one  star  differeth  from 
another  star  in  glory.  The  peculiar  constitution  of  the 
material  substance  known  as  gold  is  such  that  it  is  able 
to  receive  and  retain  more  gravital  force  than  glass,  even 
as  iron  is  so  constituted  that  it  contains  more  magnetic 
force  than  gold. 


100  THE   SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

Q.  40.  Does  not  the  heaviest  matter  contain  the  most 
gravity? 

A.  Yes,  just  as  the  hotest  metal  contains  the  most 
heat,  and  just  as  the  figure  9  contains  more  quantity  than 
the  figure  2. 

Q.  41.  But  are  figures  mere  expressions  of  numbers 
and  indications  of  quantity? 

A.  They  are,  indeed,  and  so  is  weight  the  mere  index 
of  the  measure  of  gravital  force  resident  in  any  given 
lump  of  matter. 

Q.  42.     Has  gravity  a  mechanical  force? 

A.     Gravital  force  may  be  harnessed  to  machinery. 

Q.  43.  When  so  attached,  is  it  really  the  motor  power 
which,  under  God,  causes  the  rotatory  and  other  movable? 
parts  of  the  machinery  to  move? 

A.  The  affirmative  answer  to  this  question  is  one  of 
the  cardinal  teachings  of  the  Substantial  Philosophy. 

Q.  44.  Do  not  other  and  current  theories  of  Natural 
Philosophy  teach  the  same  thing? 

A.  If  so,  our  reading  has  been  too  limited  to  make  the 
discovery. 

Q.  45.  But  is  it  not  the  water  that  turns  the  wheel, 
that  moves  the  machinery,  that  connects  with  the  burrs, 
that  grinds  the  corn  and  bolts  the  meal  in  the  mill  that 
Jack  built? 

A.  Such  is  not  the  case  in  the  mills  of  God  and  true 
science. 

Q.  46.     What  is  the  motor  power  in  such  mills? 

A.  It  is  gravital  force  which  overcomes  the  inertia  of 
matter  and  pulls  it  down  upon  the  water-wheel,  causing 
every  part  of  the  more  complicated  machinery  to  move 
in  obedience  to  this  impelling  energy  of  Nature. 

Q.  47.  But  does  not  gravity  use  water  to  make  the 
master- wheel  go  round? 

A.     Yes;  and  so  does  man  use  gravity  to  accomplish 


GRAVITY.  101 

the  same  end,  and  yet  no  one  who  is  not  blind  to  the 
facts  of  nature,  the  principles  of  science  and  the  rules  of 
logic,  will,  for  that  reason,  identify  man  with  gravity,  or 
gravity  with  water. 

Q.  48.     How  is  gravity  correlated  to  cohesion? 

A.  Gravity  may  begin  its  work  at  a  point  where  cohe- 
sion relinquishes  its  hold  upon  any  given  portion  of  matter. 

Q.  49.     Can  the  foregoing  truth  be  illustrated? 

A.  It  can.  For  example:  Through  heat  or  some 
other  force  of  nature,  cohesion  may  be  overpowered 
where  a  rocky  cliff  projects  above  the  water.  As  co- 
hesion relinquishes  its  hold,  a  piece  of  rock  passes  im- 
mediately under  the  predominating  force  of  gravity; 
gravital  force  thus  pulls  the  bowlder  down  into  the  lake 
beneath  the  granite  cliff  that  overhangs  its  border. 

Q.  50.  What  then  may  be  predicated  of  gravity  as  to 
the  effect  produced  upon  the  lake  beneath? 

A.  Under  God,  gravity  is  the  efficient  cause  of  all  the 
changes  made  upon  the  watery  surface,  or  in  the  water 
under  the  surface. 

Q.  51.  But  has  not  the  elasticity  or  compressibility 
of  the  water  something  to  do  in  causing  the  change  or 
changes  in  the  lake? 

A.  Compressibility  is  not  a  force  in  Nature,  but 
primarily  a  property  in  matter,  by  which  matter  is  able 
to  receive  a  sudden  application  of  extrinsic  force  in  such 
a  way  as  to  be  recovered  from  the  immediate  effects 
of  the  shock. 

Q.  52.  What  is  meant  by  the  immediate  effects  of  the 
shock? 

A.  A  temporary  displacement  of  particles  around,  a 
removal  of  the  water  immediately  beneath  the  falling 
stone  and  a  very  brief  vacancy  above  it. 

Q.  53.  By  what  force  then  is  the  displacement  of 
particles  adjusted,  and  the  vacancy  filled? 


102  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

A.  Cohesion  avails  itself  of  the  opportunity  afforded 
in  the  slight  compressibility  of  water,  and  operates  as  a 
constructive  force,  while  gravity  seizes  the  advantage  at 
hand  in  the  liquidity  of  such  matter  to  restore  the  former 
evenness  and  tranquillity  of  the  lake's  surface. 

Q.  54.  But  is  not  the  water  deeper  than  it  was  before 
the  fall  of  the  rock? 

A.     It  is. 

Q.  55.  Does  this  small  increase  of  depth  extend  over 
the  entire  surface  of  the  lake? 

A.     True  science  so  teaches. 

Q.  56.  In  effecting  this  change  of  depth,  is  every  drop 
of  water  in  the  lake  more  or  less  affected? 

A.  Not  necessarily.  The  mobility  and  slight  com- 
pressibility of  the  water  in  the  vicinity  of  the  rock,  and 
along  the  line  of  its  descent  from  the  surface  to  the  bot- 
tom of  the  lake,  shields  the  more  distant  portions  of  the 
water  from  the  effects  of  the  shock. 

Q.  57.  From  what  portions  of  the  lake  is  the  water 
taken  which  is  distributed  over  the  entire  surface  thereof? 

A.  It  comes  exclusively  from  no  particular  locality  or 
place  of  definable  limits,  but  from  the  entire  portion  in 
which  the  disturbance  and  displacement  occurred,  from 
the  final  resting  place  of  the  fallen  rock,  upward  along 
the  line  of  its  descent,  and  out  over  the  entire  portion  of 
the  lake  immediately  beneath  its  new  or  raised  surface. 

Q.  58.     And  gravity  does  the  work? 

A.  The  falling  rock  performed  an  instrumental  or 
mechanical  part,  but  the  efficient  work  was  done  by 
gravity,  as  ordained  by  the  wisdom  and  operated  under 
the  power  of  Him  who  calmed  the  storm  on  Galilee,  and 
tranquillized  the  troubled  elements  of  wind  and  water 
from  the  aerial  heights  above  to  the  aqueous  depths  be- 
iieath. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

ELECTRICITY. 

QUESTION  1.  What  is  the  current  theory  of  science 
with  reference  to  the  nature  and  laws  of  electricity? 

AHSWETL  There  is  great  divergency,  disagreement 
and  confusion  concerning  this  branch  of  physics,  running 
from  Thales  to  Tait,  and  ranging  from  matter  to  mo- 
tion.* 

Q.  2.  How  can  such  confusion  in  our  progressive  age 
be  satisfactorily  accounted  for? 

A.  Only  upon  the  supposition  that  the  schools  and  text- 
books are  radically  wrong  in  their  basic  theories  of  elec- 
tricity. 

Q.  3.  But  do  not  the  pretended  leaders  claim  to  be 
agnostic  in  this  branch  of  physical  science. 


*  Edison,  the  greatest  practical  electrician  now  living,  de- 
clares: "  They  (the  text-books)  are  most  misleading.  I  get  mad 
with  myself  when  I  think  how  I  have  believed  what  was  so 
learnedly  set  out  in  them.  There  are  more  frauds  in  science 
than  anywhere  else.  Take  a  whole  pile  of  them  that  I  can  name 
and  you  will  find  uncertainty  if  not  imposition  in  half  of  what 
they  state  as  scientific  truth.  .  .  .  Professor  this  or  that  will 
controvert  you  out  of  the  books,  and  prove  out  of  the  books 
that  it  can't  be  so,  though  you  have  it  right  in  the  hollow  of 
your  hand  all  the  time  and  could  break  his  spectacles  with  it. — 
Edison  in  New  York  Herald  of  Dec.  31,  1879,  and  quoted  by 
Dr.  Hall  in  the  "  Problem  of  Human  Life,"  p.  8, 


104  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

A.  Some  of  them  in  this  particular  are  beautifully 
consistent.* 

Q.  4.  Do  they  all  make  such  concessions  and  confes- 
sions? 

A.  They  do  not.  Some  of  them  define  electricity  as 
imponderable  matter. \ 

Q.  5.  Do  the  most  of  modern  electricians  agree  to  the 
foregoing  definition? 

A.  There  is  no  general  agreement.  Gordon,  in  his 
"Phys.  Treat,  on  Elect,  and  Mag. /'says:  "We  must 
not,  however,  commit  ourselves  to  the  idea  that  electric- 
ity is  a  [material]  substance.  We  do  not  know  whether  it 
is  or  not.  There  are  many  other  instances  of  quantities 
which  are  not  substances. "J 

Q.  6.  What  does  he  mean  by  "  unsubstantial  quanti- 
ties"? 

A.  His  meaning  is  obvious  from  his  illustrations; 
e.  g.)  he  speaks  of  pressure  as  a  quantity  without  sub- 
stance, and  represents  the  pressure  as  produced  by  the 
pulling  of  a  horse,  unmindful  that  the  pressure  of  which 
he  speaks  is  mechanical  force,  produced  by  or  converted 
from  the  life-force  of  the  animal,  which  force  is  a  quan- 
titative substance. 

Q.  7.     What  is  the  latest  theory,  and  the  one  most 

*  Prof.  John  Trowbridge,  in  Pop.  Sci.  Monthly,  says:  "  We 
shall  never  know  what  electricity  is."  Prof.  Nichols,  of  Boston, 
says:  "  Electricity  in  itself  considered,  and  much  of  its  attend- 
ant phenomena,  belong  to  the  realm  of  the  unknown.  .  .  . 
Considered  as  a  thing,  we  know  as  much  of  spirit  as  we  do  of 
electricity.— Dr.  H.  A.  Mott,  LL.D.,  in  Microcosm,  Vol.  V.  p.  145. 

f  This  is  called  Lym men's  theory,  and  of  which  Ganot  says: 
"  It  is  quite  hypothetical,  but  its  general  adoption  is  justifiable 
by  the  convenient  explanation  it  gives  of  electrical  phenomena." 
—See  Dr.  Mott,  ibid.,  p.  147. 

\  Ibid.,  p.  146. 


ELECTRICITY.  10£ 

alarmingly  epidemic  in  the  densely  populated  metropolis 
of  false  science? 

A.  That  electricity  is  a  condition  of  an  all-pervading 
material  called  ether,  and  that  electric  attraction  and 
repulsion  are  only  a  palpitation  of  ether's  great  heart. 

Q.  8.     But  is  electricity  really  knowable? 

A.  If  it  is  something  entirely  beyond  the  power  of 
human  investigation  and  comprehension,  it  has  no  mis- 
sion in  a  world  whose  entities  and  activities  all  culminate 
in  the  superior  endowments  of  the  human  mind.  God 
speaks  to  man  in  every  entity,  by  every  force  and  through 
every  law  of  Nature,  and  it  would  be  exceedingly  disre- 
spectful to  the  God  of  nature  to  even  intimate  that  he 
has  spoken  in  an  absolutely  unknown  and  unknpwable 
tongue. 

Q.  9.     Why  then  this  babel  of  confusion? 

A.  The  light  of  Nature,  like  that  of  Eevelation,  may 
shine  in  darkness  and  the  darkness  comprehend  it  not. 
Confusion  in  science  is  sometimes  the  result  of  educated 
ignorance  and  formulated  falsehoods.  Concerning  elec- 
tricity there  has  been  great  ignorance  as  to  its  real 
nature. 

Q.  10.  Have  there  been  any  recent  discoveries  throw- 
ing new  light  upon  the  subject? 

A.     The  recent  discoveries  of  certain  laws  and  facts 
in  Nature  are  conservatively  revolutionary  in  their  bear 
ing  upon  the  general  field  of   science,  and   as  a  result 
electricity  will  be  studied  from  the  new  standpoint  of  in- 
quiry into  its  real  character. 

Q.  11.     Why  was  not  the  discovery  made  sooner? 

A.  For  two  sufficient  reasons:  1.  The  learned  world 
persisted  in  shutting  out  the  new  light  by  interposing 
the  opacity  of  its  own  scholastic  prejudice.  2.  God  has 
his  set  time  to  favor  Science  as  well  as  to  favor  Zion. 

Q.  12.     "What  then  is  electricity  as  to  its  real  nature? 


106  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

A.  It  is  a  real,  substantial  force  element  and  a  verita- 
ble entity  of  being,  independent  of  all  matter,  and  ab- 
solutely dependent  only  upon  the  Infinite  Source  of  its 
finite  being. 

Q.  13.  In  what  does  electricity  surpass  and  differ  from 
some  other  force-elements  in  Nature?* 

A.  It  surpasses  some  of  them  in  its  performance  of 
the  most  marvelous  functions  in  the  complicated  system 
of  the  physical  realm,  and  by  certain  phenomena  indi- 
cating that  it  is  possibly  a  connecting  link  which  unites 
the  physical  with  the  biological  realm  about  it. 

Q.  14.     How  is  electricity  produced? 

A.  It  is  developed  or  excited  into  a  more  active  state 
of  being. 

Q.  15.     From  what  is  it  developed? 

A.  From  static  electricity,  or  electric  force  in  a  state 
of  rest. 

Q.  16.  Is  static  electricity  really  or  only  apparently  at 
rest? 

A.  It  is  only  apparently  at  rest.  Indeed,  it  may  be 
questioned  whether  any  force  is  ever  really  at  rest. 

Q.  17.  Does  not  such  a  statement  seem  unwarrantable 
and  unscientific? 

A.  It  ought  not  to  seem  unreasonable  to  the  material- 
ists who  have  the  venturesome  arrogance  to  affirm,  and 
who  are  bound  by  all  the  cords  of  their  own  stubborn 
sophistry  to  teach,  that  inert  matter  is  always  moving 
upon  the  rickety  vehicle  of  molecular  motion. 

Q.  18.     In  what  does  static  electricity  reside? 

A.  In  all  forms  and  kinds  of  matter.  In  some  there 
is  more  than  in  others. 

*  "  Had  we  eyes  or  a  sense  which  could  unfold  the  part  which 
electricity  plays  in  the  economy  of  Nature,  our  knowledge  would 
be  greatly  increased,  and  scenes  as  varied  as  a  gorgeous  sunset 
woukl  be  disclosed  to  us." — Dr.  H.  A.  Mott. 


ELECTRICITY.  -107 

Q.  10.  How  is  static  electricity  developed  so  as  to  give 
manifestation  of  itself  by  its  phenomena  and  power  over 
matter? 

A.  It  maybe  developed  by  friction  or  contact  of  differ- 
ent bodies. 

Q.  20.  May  this  be  done  independent  of  all  condi- 
tions? 

A.  God  has  ordained  that  in  the  tranquil  workings  of 
his  perpetual  Providence,  as  well  as  in  the  possible 
catastroph.es  in  Nature,  nothing  is  done  without  the 
presence  of  required  conditions. 

Q.  21.  Can  electricity  be  developed  from  the  other 
force-elements  of  Nature? 

A.  Under  the  required  conditions  other  force-ele- 
ments, such  as  adhesion,  cbemism,  cohesion,  heat  and 
light  are  converted  or  transformed  into  electricity. 

Q.  22.  In  order  to  change  one  or  more  forces  into 
electricity  does  it  require  a  friction  of  forces  9 

A.  It  does  not.  The  possibility  of  such  transforma- 
tion is  based  upon  the  constitutional  correlation  and  con- 
sequent convertibility  of  forces. 

Q.  23.  Is  work  or  life -force  convertible  into  elec- 
tricity? 

A.  Yes;  e.  y.,  when  a  piece  of  glass  is  rubbed  with  a 
piece  of  silk  the  life-force  thus  expended  is  converted 
through  the  mediate  forces  of  adhesion  and  heat  into 
electricity. 

Q.  24.     What  is  life-force  9 

A.  This  question  is  answered  in  chapter  XL,  which 
treats  of  Life. 

Q.  25.     Are  there  two  electricities,  or  only  one? 

A.  Electricity,  like  humanity,  is  one  in  the  essential 
unity  of  its  substance  and  constitution.  Humanity  in- 
volves a  twofoldness  of  sex  as  essential  to  the  essence  -of 
its  being,  as  well  as  to  the  law  of  its  development;  so 


108  THE  SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

docs  electricity  involve  a  certain  twofoldness  of  attrac- 
tion and  repulsion,  by  which  it  continues  to  complement 
itself  in  its  development  and  in  the  performance  of  its 
important  functions  in  nature. 

Q.  26.  But  are  there  not  opposite,  or  positive  and 
negative  poles  in  electricity? 

A.  There  are  different  electrical  states  or  potentials, 
but  the  opposition  is  only  apparent.*  The  distinction 
between  attraction  and  repulsion  is  involved  m  the  con- 
stitution and  laws  of  one  positive  force- element. in  nature 
— electricity. 

Q.  27.  What  is  the  meaning  of  '"potential,"  as  em- 
ployed above? 

A.  In  an  electrical  sense,  the  word  is  used  to  express 
the  degree  in  which  a  body  is  charged  with  electrical 
force. 

Q.  28.  Then  the  terms  positive  and  negative  express 
quantity  rather  than  quality? 

A.  They  express  quantity  in  a  relative  sense.  The 
electrified  body  is  said  to  be  positively  or  negatively 
charged,  according  as  it  has  -{-  or  — ,  greater  or  less  elec- 
tricity than  surrounding  bodies,  f 

*  'i'here  is  no  opposition  necessarily  involved  in  the  distinction 
of  sex  as  long  as  these  complementary  parts  of  humanity  are 
kept  in  their  normal  and  legitimate  relation  to  each  other. 
When  it  is  abnormally  otherwise,  look  out  for  thunder  and  light- 
ning extraordinary. 

f  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  substantial  electrical  force, 
like  substantial  heat  and  the  substantial  force  of  gravitation,  is 
a  simple  form  or  manifestation  of  the  force-element  of  Nature. 
A  metal  rod,  heated  at  one  point,  has  its  heat  potential  at  that 
point  raised,  and  there  is  an  immediate  flow  of  heat  to  the 
colder  part,  or  part  of  lower  potential,  which  continues  till  the 
equilibrium  is  restored,  by  raising  the  lower  potential  and  lower- 
ing the  higher.  (See  the  Electrician — article  by  Atkinson,  Vol. 
II'.,  p.  270.) 

Fill  with  water  two   vertical  pipes,  connected  below,  and  it 


ELECTRICITY.  109 

Q.  29.     Can  electricity  travel? 

A.  It  has  demonstrated  its  ability  to  move  at  a  very 
rapid  rate  of  speed. 

Q.  30.     What  substances  conduct  it? 

stands  at  the  same  level  in  each.  Press  it  down  with  a  piston  two 
feet  below  the  level  in  one,  and  it  rises  two  feet  above  the  level 
in  the  other;  and  the  force  of  the  piston  is  the  exact  measure  of 
this  difference  of  potential.  Decrease  this  force,  and  the  ten- 
dency to  equilibrium  at  once  becomes  manifest;  remove  it,  and 
the  equilibrium  is  restored. 

So  with  the  substantial  electrical  force,  -f  and  —  electrical 
force  are  simply  difference  of  potential.  In  a  large  conductor 
like  the  earth,  the  potential  over  any  limited  area,  as  stated,  is 
equal  or  at  zero;  hence  the  potential  of  the  earth  is  taken  as  the 
standard. 

If  two  insulated  conductors  are  oppositely  charged  (i.  e. ,  at 
different  potential),  and  either  of  them  placed  in  electric  con- 
nection with  the  earth,  its  equilibrium  is  restored;  in  the  +,  by 
a  flow  of  electricity  to  the  earth,  and  in  the  —  by  a  flow  of  elec- 
tricity from  the  earth.  If  both,  while  insulated,  are  placed  in 
connection  with  each  other,  equilibrium  takes  place  between 
them  by  a  flow  from  +  to  — ;  and  their  potential  will  then  be 
above  or  below  that  of  the  earth,  that  is,  at  +  or  —  potential, 
according  as  the  original  potential  of  either  was  the  greater.  If 
the  —  potential  of  one  was  exactly  equal  to  the  -f-  potential  of 
the  other,  the  resulting  potential  would  be  zero,  like  the  earth. 
Charged  bodies  at  the  same  potential  naturally  repel,  and  at 
different  potential  attract  each  other,  the  flow  of  electricity 
being  from  +  to  —  ;  a  charged  body,  then,  is  one  whose  equilib- 
rium is  disturbed  by  a  change  of  potential  above  or  below  the 
potential  of  the  earth,  and  therefore  shows  a  tendency  to  equi- 
librium. 

These  two  kinds  of  potential  have  for  another  reason  been 
called  +  and  — ,  because  when  added  together  (as  in  algebra) 
they  combine,  and  the  substantial  electrical  force  disappears, 
under  some  conditions,  to  reappear  as  substantial  sound,  sub- 
stantial heat,  substantial  light,  etc..  which  in  turn  disappear,  to 
reappear  in  some  other  form,  or  go  back  to  be  conserved  in  the 
force-element  of  nature. — Dr.  Henry  A.  Mott,  in  Microcosm. 
Vol.  V.,  pp.  149,  150. 


110  THE   SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

A.  Under  proper  conditions  all  finite  substances  are 
conductors  of  this  wonderful  force.* 

Q.  31.  Then  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  a  perfect 
insulator? 

A.  No  more  than  there  can  be  a  perfect  vacuum. 
Nature,  not  having  been  made  out  of  nothing,  despises 
a  vacuum,  and,  to  be  consistent,  must  despise  the  theory 
that  there  is  an  effectual  blockade  in  the  royal  right-of- 
way  of  her  forces. 

Q.  32.  But  are  not  some  substances  better  conductors 
of  electricity  than  others? 

A.  They  are;  and  the  same  is  true  of  heat  and  all  the 
other  force-elements  in  nature. 

Q.  33.     What  is  one  of  the  best  known  conductors  of 
electricity? 
A.     Silver. 

Q.  34.  Why  is  it  one  of  the  best,  or  why  has  it  the 
most  conducting  ability? 

A.  Because  in  silver  the  substantial  force  of  cohesion 
is  so  permitted  to  exercise  itself  in  holding  the  particles 
of  that  metal  in  concrete  mass  as  to  assist  the  passage  of 
electrical  force  with  greater  ease  and  facility  than  is 
possible  in  many  other  kinds  of  matter. 

Q.  35.     Does  matter  really  conduct  electricity? 

A.  It  does  not.  Matter  is  always  passive.  It  allows 
that  entity  to  pass,  and  the  extent  of  the  permission  is  in 
exact  proportion  to  the  degree  of  ability  that  matter 
possesses  to  justify  the  charter  for  the  transit. 

Q.  36.  If  matter  then  is  merely  passive  in  permitting 
the  passage  of  traveling  electricity,  what  is  really  the 
conductor  thereof? 

*  Dr.  Hogeboom  thinks  that  perfectly  dry  ashes  is  one  of  very 
few  exceptions.— See  his  article  on  Electricity  in  "  Appleton's 
Cyclopedia." 


ELECTRICITY.  Ill 

A.  Force  is  the  active  agency  in  the  conduction  of 
force. 

Q.  37.     Is  electricity  then  its  own  conductor? 

A.  Electric  force  travels  with  ease  according  as  the 
cohesive  and  heat  force  in  any  kind  of  matter  gives 
it  facility  for  speed.  Thus  silver  admits  of  a  better  rate 
of  travel  than  charcoal  because  of  the  more  favorable  ar- 
rangement of  its  particles  by  the  substantial  force  of 
cohesion. 

Q.  38.  Is  electricity  convertible  or  transformable  into 
other  forces?  * 

A.  It  may  be  transformed  into  heat,  light,  and 
sound,  f 

Q.  39.  Is  electricity  a  material  or  an  immaterial  sub- 
stance ? 

A.  True  science  teaches  that  it  is  an  immaterial  sub- 
stance. 

Q.  40.  Why  is  it  unscientific  to  teach  that  electricity 
is  matter,,  even  in  its  highly  attenuated  and  alleged 
ethereal  form? 

A.  For  two  general  reasons:  1.  It  is  destitute  of  prop- 
erties which  belong  to  all  matter.  2.  It  possesses  dy- 
namic powers  which  are  not  predicable  of  matter. 

*  The  Substantial  Philosophy  has  not  yet  undertaken  the 
tempting  task  of  investigating  and  explaining  the  relation 
which  may  exist  between  electric  force  and  that  obviously  in- 
stinctive force  by  which  the  young  pigeon  returns  directly  to  its 
distant  home,  and  to  that  spirit  force  by  which  the  child  of 
heaven  seeks  with  constant  yearnings  his  home  beyond  the 
clouds. 

f  It  must  be  clearly  understood  that,  according  to  the  theory 
of  Substantial  ism,  the  all-pervading  force-element  of  Nature  is 
capable  of  manifesting  itself  in  various  forms,  according  as  it  is 
acted  upon,  and  that  each  of  the  forms  of  manifestation  of  this 
reservoir  of  force  is  capable  of  being  converted  into  any  one  of 
the  forms  which  can  be  produced  from  the  original  condition  of 
the  force-element. — Dr.  Mott,  in  Mic.,  Vol.  V.,  p.  151. 


112  THE   SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

Q.  41.  But  is  not  electricity  matter  in  motion,  or  a 
peculiar  condition  of  ethereal  matter? 

A.  Nonsense  in  motion!  Electricity  moves  matter. 
That  which  moves  matter  can  be  called  matter  in  neither 
truth  nor  science;  and  that  which  changes  the  condition 
of  matter  cannot  be  predicated  as  a  mere  condition 
thereof. 

Q.  42.  At  what  velocity  docs  lightning  or  electricity 
travel? 

A.  It  has  been  estimated  at  300,000  miles  per  second 
by  the  copper  wire  route. 

Q.  43.  And  are  there  men  upon  the  earth  in  this 
scientific  age  who  teach  that  inert  matter,  or  some  "  con- 
dition "  of  matter  can  travel  at  such  an  astounding  rate 
of  speed? 

A.-  Yes,  gentle  reader,  there  are  still  some  teachers 
who  stuff  their  unsuspecting  students  with  such  super- 
lative bosh. 

Q.  44.     Why  do  they  teach  it? 

A.  Because  they  have  been  so  long  chained  to  the 
fatal  rock  of  false  assumptions  that  the  vultures  of  edu- 
cated prejudice  have  eaten  out  their  very  vitals  of  proper 
independence  as  pretended  searchers  after  the  truth. 

Q.  45.  But  is  it  not  a  mere  influence  going  out  from 
matter,  or  from  an  assumed  condition  of  matter,  as  an 
immaterial  nonentity  producing  certain  results  which  the 
human  mind  is  bound  to  relegate  to  the  domain  of  mys- 
tery? 

A.  Mysterious  things  are  not  produced  of  nothing 
any  more  than  the  things  which  are  more  fully  accounted 
for  and  comprehended.  The  works  which  electricity 
performs  bear  testimony  to  the  unprejudiced  reasoning 
faculties  of  man  that  it  is  a  substantial  force-element  in 
the  constitution  of  Nature. 


ELECTRICITY.  113 

Q.  46.  What  works  does  electricity,  under  God,  per- 
form? 

A.  It  is  just  now  a  leading  question  in  the  minds  of 
advanced  thinkers*  as  to  what  works  are  not  performed 
by  electricity  in  the  physical  economy  of  Nature.  It 
should  for  the  present  be  satisfactory  to  all  earnest  in- 
quirers after  the  truth  that  electricity  must  be  a  sub- 
stance, a  force  and  an  active  entity  in  Nature,  or  it  could 
not  accomplish  what  every  schoolboy  of  ordinary  intelli- 
gence knows  to  be  above  and  beyond  all  rational  contro- 
versy. Time  itself  would  fail  before  its  manifold  func- 
tions in  Nature  could  be  told.  It  purifies  the  atmosphere 
and  conserves  the  conditions  of  animal  life.  It  is  capa- 
ble of  moving  tho  machinery  of  industrial  civilization, 
and  of  illumining  all  the  cities  of  the  globe.  It  carries 
messages  of  human  intelligence  at  lightning  speed  over 
the  mountains  and  under  the  oceans  of  the  world.  In- 
stead of  dissipating,  it  conserves  the  energy  and  renews 
the  vigor  of  its  youth;  and  will  so  continue  to  conserve 
itself  until  its  marvelous  phenomena  shall  .culminate  in  a 
grand  display  of  its  elemental  glory,  when  the  coming 
of  the  Son  of  Man,  as  lightning  shining  from  the  east, 
even  unto  the  west,  shall  be  heralded  by  a  corresponding 
display  of  its  correlative  forces  in  the  heat  of  burning 
worlds,  the  light  of  blazing  planets,  and  the  last  long 
sound  of  GabrieFs  mighty  trumpet. 

*Rev.  B.  T.  Kavanagh,  D.  D.,  of  Owingsville,  Ky.,  a  forcible 
and  voluminous  writer,  has  advanced  the  theory  that  the  heav- 
enly bodies  are  all  moved  by  electrical  or  magnetic  attraction. 
This  bold  theory,  plausible  in  many  of  its  features,  has  now 
been  before  the  world  for  a  number  of  years,  and  yet  down  to 
this  present  writing  there  has  been  no  unusual  wreck  of  matter 
or  crash  of  worlds  in  any  visible  portion  of  the  zodiac  as  a  con- 
sequence of  the  change  from  gravital  to  electrical  motive  power. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

HEAT. 

QUESTION"  1.  "What  may  be  properly  considered  under 
this  general  subject  of  heat? 

ANSWER.     Its  source,  nature,  action,  and  motor-power. 

Q.  2.     Whence  has  heat  its  origin? 

A.  God  is  primordially  the  source  of  all  substantial 
things.  (See  Chapter  I.) 

Q.  3.  But  is  not  the  sun  in  some  sense  the  source  of 
heat? 

A.  Mediately  heat  comes  from  the  sun  as  the  great 
thermal  store  house  or  reservoir  in  our  solar  system.  It 
also  comes  from  its  latent  state  in  Nature  when  devel- 
oped by  mechanical  or  chemical  action.  So  does  it  pass 
from  any  body  of  higher  relative  temperature. 

Q.  4.     Is  heat  made  by  mechanical  or  chemical  action? 

A.  It  is  not.  There  is  static  or  latent  heat  in  all 
matter,  and  it  may  be  produced  by  friction  or  favorable 
combination,  just  as  sound  is  liberated  and  electricity 
developed  by  compliance  with  certain  conditions  ordained 
of  God  to  such  ends. 

Q.  5.     What  is  heat  as  to  its  nature  9 

A.  It  is  that  force  in  Nature  which,  by  entering  our 
tactile  nerves,  produces  the  sensation  called  warmth. 

Q.  6.  Has  heat  an  objective  existence  independent  of 
such  sensation? 

A.  It  has;  just  as  light  would  still  have  an  existence 
even  though  all  sensuous  beings  were  to  become  as  blind 


HEAT.  115 

as  materialistic  philosophers,  or  as  nearsighted  as  sensa- 
tionalists in  science;  just  as  the  aesthetic  world  would 
have  no  less  beauty  though  all  angels  and  men  were  to 
lose  their  powers  of  admiration;  just  as  flavor  would 
still  be  found  in  the  savory  viands  of  the  sumptuous 
feaet  though  all  the  guests  should  be  deprived  of  their 
gustatory  nerves;  and  just  as  sound  would  still  have  its 
objective  existence  even  though  all  men  and  birds  and 
beasts  were  to  become  as  deaf  as  adders  are  supposed  to 
be. 

Q.  7.     Is  heat  a  real  substance? 

A.  It  is  just  as  really  a  substance  as  the  water  which 
it  converts  into  vapor,  the  air  which  it  rarifies,  the 
clay  which  it  hardens,  the  wood  which  it  reduces  to 
ashes,  or  the  material  elements  of  the  building  which  it 
licks  up  with  the  cloven  tongues  of  its  conflagration. 

Q.  8.  But  do  not  the  text-books  of  the  schools  and  the 
representative  physicists  of  the  world  teach  that  heat  is 
"  only  a  mode  of  motion"? 

A.  They  all  so  taught  until  recently,  when  the  ap- 
pearance of  the  glorious  gospel  of  the  Substantial  Phi- 
losophy began  to  show  the  tremendous  fallacy  of  such 
teaching;  and  even  yet  there  are  some  who  still  cling  to 
this  mode  of  motion  theory  of  heat.* 

Q.  9.  What  do  such  authorities  say  in  support  of  this 
theory? 

A.  They  lay  down  false  premises  and  start  their 
sophistry  from  a  false  assumption;  viz.:  that  rest  is  an 
abnormal  state  of  matter,  and  that  therefore  "even  the 
molecules  of  a  solid  are  in  constant  vibration.  This  as- 
sumed voluntary  activity  of  inert  matter  is  supposed  to 
produce  heat.  Thus  the  cart  is  placed  before  the  horse, 

*  See  "  Appleton's  Cyclopedia,"  Vol.  8,  p.  568,  Steele's  "  Nat. 
Philosophy,"  p.  228,  and  "  Heat  as  a  Mode  of  Motion,"  by  John 
Tymlall, 


116  .  THE  SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

and  as  they  with  the  driver  go  rolling  and  tumbling  down 
the  hill  amidst  the  adulation  of  thoughtless  fools,  the 
regular  symposium  of  the  world's  philosophers  look  ex- 
ceedingly wise  at  what  they  call  thermo-dynamics. 

Q.  10.  Then  heat  is  something  more  than  vibratory 
rotation  of  molecules  in  matter? 

A.  Indeed  it  is.  True  science  rejects  the  whole  mis- 
erable assumption  and  sophistry  of  molecular  motion. 
Eest  or  quiescence  is  the  normal  state  of  matter.  If 
gravity  had  been  recognized  as  a  force-element  in  the 
universe,  the  learned  world  would  never  have  fallen  into 
such  a  fundamental  fallacy.  Inertia  is  a  property  of 
matter  in  lump;  why  should  it  not  be  considered  a  prop- 
erty thereof  in  smaller  quantity?  If  matter  cannot  move 
itself  in  mass,  why  should  science  conclude  that  it  can 
do  so  in  molecule?  The  sooner  the  world's  bookful  block- 
heads abandon  the  theory  built  upon  such  an  assumption 
the  better  will  it  be  for  all  parties  except  those  who  are 
building  precarious  reputations  for  wisdom  out  of  the 
wood,  hay  and  stubble  of  false  science. 

Q.  11.     Is  inertia  a  property  of  immaterial  substances? 

A.  Not  in  the  same  sense  that  it  belongs  to  matter. 
God  has  given  to  some  immaterial  substances  power  to 
move  themselves.  He  has  not  endowed  matter  with  such 
power.  Heat  being  an  immaterial  force-substance,  has 
derivative  dynamic  power  in  itself. 

Q.  12.  Why  should  heat  have  such  power  when  it  has 
been  withheld  from  matter? 

A.  Because  it  was  in  accordance  with  the  pleasure 
and  wise  purpose  of  God,  the  great  source  of  all  things 
material  and  immaterial,  so  to  ordain  it.  He  may  have 
created  the  horse  to  pull  the  wagon  because  the  wagon 
cannot  move  itself. 

Q.  13.  What  is  the  first  peculiar  motion  of  heat  as  a 
force? 


HEAT.  117 

A.     Diffusion. 
Q.  14.     What  is- diffusion? 

A.  That  property  or  ability  of  heat  by  which  it  trav- 
els or  disperses  itself. 

Q.  15.  Is  it  not  ascribing  to  heat  an  attribute  of  Deity 
to  concede  to  it  the  power  of  self-motion? 

A.  It  is  not  claimed  by  the  Substantial  Philosophy 
that  heat  either  originates  itself  or  endows  itself  with 
self -impelling  energy,  but  that  it  came  into  existence 
from  God's  own  substantial  being,  and  brought  with  it( 
the  principle  of  its  peculiar  impulse  as  a  force-element  in 
Nature,  as  well  as  the  law  of  its  diffusive  activity.  The 
same  is  true  of  magnetism,  electricity,  sound,  and  also  of 
all  the  life-forces,  even  up  to  the  intellectuality  and  spir- 
ituality of  the  human  person.  See  Chapter  XL 

Q.  16.     By  what  law  or  rule  does  heat  travel? 

A.  While  it  has  some  things  in  common  with,  all  the 
forces  of  Nature,  its  law  of  travel  has  some  peculiarities 
of  its  own. 

Q.  17.  Does  it  travel  equally  well  through  all  kinds 
of  matter? 

A.  It  does  not.  Like  sound  and  electricity,  heat 
travels  better  and  faster  through  some  bodies  than  others. 

Q.  18.  Does  heat  require  a  material  medium  or  con- 
ductor through  which  to  travel? 

A.  It  does  not.  Heat  travels  with  greater  freedom 
and  speed  when  by  strict  radiation  it  darts  away  in  every 
direction,  and  like  gravity  and  light  shoots  its  rays  from 
world  to  world. 

Qi  19.     Do  rays  of  heat  elevate  the  temperature  of  the 
media  through  which  they  pass  ? 
A.     They  do. 

Q.  20.  What  is  the  teaching  of  the  text-books  upon 
this  point? 


118  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

A.  The  language  of  the  text-book*  before  us  is: 
"  Kays  of  heat  do  not  elevate  the  temperature  of  the 
media  through  which  they  pass/'  But  let  the  professor 
lay  his  hand  on  a  bar  of  iron  with  one  end  heated,  and 
thrust  it  into  a  vessel  of  cold  water,  and  he  will  soon 
feel  the  temperature  of  the  medium  rise  high  enough  to 
burn  his  hand — possibly  high  enough  to  burn  his  book. 

Q.  21.  How  does  he  attempt  to  prove  his  fallacy  in 
science? 

A.  By  the  statement  that  "  space  is  not  warmed  by 
the  sunbeam." 

Q.  22.     Is  not  this  latter  statement  correct? 

A.  It  is  correct,  because  space  is  nothing,  and  conse- 
quently there  is  nothing  in  its  emptiness  to  warm.  It  is 
just  as  impossible  to  warm  space  as  it  is  to  warm  motion 
or  a  triangle.  It  is,  however,  different  when  the  medium 
of  heat's  travel  is  a  material  substance.  Space  being 
nothing,  it  is  not  media.  It  is  room  for  something. 

Q.  23.  But  is  not  all  interstellar  space  filled  with 
ether,  and,  if  so,  is  not  this  ether  necessary  to  the  con- 
duction of  heat? 

A.  Yes.  False  science,  in  its  ignorance  of  substantial 
immaterial  forces,  manufactured  ether,  arid  out  of  it  con- 
structed some  hypotheses  which  it  will  be  glad  to  get 
clear  of  as  soon  as  the  brightening,  broadening  splendor 
of  revolutionary  truth  succeeds  in  driving  such  imagi- 
nary "  jelly  "  from  the  skies. 

Q.  24.  Is  there  any  difference  between  the  conduction 
and  radiation  of  heat? 

A.  The  term  conduction  is  most  proper  in  speaking 
of  the  travel  of  heat  through  dense  material,  while  radia- 
tion primarily  signifies  the  dispersion  of  heat  from  the 
surface  of  a  dense  body  containing  more  heat  than  the 

*  Steele's  "  Fourteen  Weeks  in  Philosophy,"  p.  245. 


HEAT.  119 

surrounding  atmospnere,  space  or  ether,  provided   there 
be  such  a  thing  in  existence. 

Q.  25.     What  is  the  effect  of  heat  upon  matter? 

A.  Its  direct  tendency  is  to  overcome  cohesive  at- 
traction and  expand  the  mass.  In  chemistry  and  in  the 
sphere  of  life  its  effects  are  numerous,  and  often  the 
very  reverse  of  each  other.  It  changes  the  form  of 
matter  differently,  as  in  the  thawing  of  ice,  and  in  the 
hardening  of  an  egg  by  boiling.  It  hardens  clay  while 
it  melts  iron. 

Q.  26.  Why  does  heat  have  such  an  opposite  effect 
upon  different  kinds  of  matter? 

A.  Because  in  different  kinds  of  matter  the  particles 
are  differently  arranged  by  the  force  of  cohesion;  and 
also  because  other  forces  operative  in  matter  are  differ- 
ently correlated  with  heat  and  with  each  other.  Forces 
act  less  freely  when  largely  antagonized  or  neutralized  by 
other  forces. 

Q.  27.  What  was  the  purpose  of  God  in  endowing 
heat  with  the  power  and  facility  of  manipulating  mat- 
ter, and  traveling  through  matter  by  way  of  conduction, 
and  radiating  from  matter  by  way  of  general  diffusion? 

A.  To  enable  it  to  accomplish  its  mission  in  the  gen- 
eral economy  of  the  universe. 

Q.  28.     What  is  its  peculiar  mission  as  a  traveler? 
A.     Like  electricity  it  serves  to  restore  equilibrium  be- 
tween extreme  conditions. 

Q.  29.     Between   what   two   extremes    does  radiation 
seek  to  restore  equilibrium? 
A.     Between  intense  heat  and  severe  cold. 

Q.  30,  Why  is  such  intermediate  state  or  moderate 
temperature  demanded  in  the  economy  of  Nature? 

A.  In  order  to  serve  Nature's  higher  purpose — the 
preservation  and  propagation  of  animal  life. 


120  THE  SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

Q.  31.  What  degree  of  heat  is  most  favorable  to  the 
accomplishment  of  such  a  purpose? 

A.  The  required  degree  of  heat  or  warmth  differs  ac- 
cording to  circumstances,  according  to  the  specific  nature 
of  the  animal  or  animated  being,  according  to  its  environ- 
ments, and  the  specific  purpose  each  animal  or  living 
being  is  to  serve  in  the  general  economy  of  Nature. 
Human  life  attains  its  fullest  earthly  development  and 
finest  earthly  form  in  the  Temperate  Zone  and  a  degree 
of  warmth  not  far  from  the  half-way  point  between 
sixty  degs.  below  zero  and  boiling  water  point,  212  degs., 
above. 

Q.  32.  If  then  the  proper  equilibrium  or  temperature 
more  favorable  to  the  preservation  and  perpetuation  of  ani- 
mal being  is  more  or  less  adjacent  to  the  middle  point  be- 
tween a  destructive  degree  of  intense  heat  and  the  sever- 
ity of  extreme  cold,  and  if  heat,  as  Substantialism 
teaches,  is  a  positive  entity,  does  it  not  follow  in  reason 
that  cold  is  also  something  substantial  in  its  nature,  since 
it  seems  to  join  with  heat  in  producing  certain  results? 

A.  It  does  not  so  follow.  Cold  is  a  negative  idea  of 
which  we  can  have  but  a  negative  concept.  It  is  a  non- 
entity. On  this  point  the  text-books  are  mainly  right. 
And  it  would  be  strange  indeed  if  it  were  otherwise. 
The  current  materialistic  theories  of  physical  science, 
while  they  deny  the  positively  substantial  character  of 
all  cntitative  force-elements  in  Nature,  would  be  unpar- 
donably  inconsistent  if  they  should  hesitate  or  fail  to 
call  a  genuine  nothing  by  its  right  name. 

Q.  33.  Do  the  analogies  of  Nature  tend  to  confirm 
the  correctness  of  this  view? 

A.  They  do.  Negative  darkness  is  the  absence  of 
light.  Silence  is  the  absence  of  the  substantial  force - 
element  called  sound.  Death  or  lifelessness  is  the  nega- 
tive of  life — a  nothing  of  which  the  human  mind  can 
form  no  positive  concept.  Absolute  vacuity,  if  such  a 


HEAT.  121 

thing  were  possible,  would  be  the  absence  of  everything 
— a  realm  of  emptiness — space — nothing. 

Q.  34.     Is  absolute  cold  the  absence  of  all  heat? 

A,  Theoretically,  it  is;  practically,  it  is  an,  impossi- 
bility. Nature  despises  a  vacuum,  and  raises  her  protest 
against  it  in  every  part  of  her  domain.  If  all  other  sub- 
stances were  to  rebel  and  secede  from  the  territory  of  her 
dominion,  her  partial  desolation  would  still  cry  out  through 
inter-stellar  space:  "Let  there  be  gravity!"  and  "Let 
there  be  light!" 

Q,  35.  What  do  our  experience  and  observation  teach 
concerning  the  presence  of  some  heat  in  all  places  and 
in  all  matter  of  which  we  have  any  knowledge? 

A,  They  teach,  in  harmony  with  Eevelation,  that 
since  God  "set  a  tabernacle  for  the  sun"  "there  is  noth- 
ing hid  from  the  heat  thereof,"  Two  pieces  of  ice  rubbed 
together  will  develop  heat,  proving  that  there  is  a  limited 
quantity  of  heat  even  in  the  cold  bosom  of  an  iceberg,* 

*  And  here  let  us  say,  in  passing,  that  this  natural  law  or  tend- 
ency to  diffusion,  which  causes  heat  to  radiate  from  one  body 
of  greater  heat  into  another  possessing  less  heat,  thus  seeking 
to  establish  equilibrium,  would  seem  necessarily  to  preclude  the 
possibility  of  the  absolute  non- presence  of  heat,  even  in  the  cold- 
est ice  of  the  arctic  regions.  .  .  .  Ice  can  be  frozen  solid  at 
30  deg.  F.  But  it  becomes  colder  and  colder  by  thermometric 
test  down  to  zero,  then  on  down  to  40  deg.  below  zero,  when  the 
mercury  solidifies  in  the  bulb  of  the  Fahrenheit  thermometer. 
Of  course  it  could  only  become  colder  by  the  radiation  of  more 
and  more  heat,  and  therefore  there  must  have  been  some  heat 
there  to  get  out.  Then  by  another  thermometer  of  greater  range 
we  still  trace  the  further  radiation  of  heat  even  from  that  arctic 
ice  down  to  the  equivalent  of  60  deg.  or  70  deg.  F. ,  and  all  the 
time  it  is  solid  ice,  though  all  the  time  having  some  heat  yet  to 
part  with,  making  the  cold,  as  we  call  it,  or  heat-absence,  more 
and  more  intense.  Clearly,  if  there  were  not  some  heat  left  in 
ice  at  60  deg.  below  zero,  it  is  plain  that  a  thermometer  in  con- 
tact with  it  could  not  continue  to  go  down. — Dr.  Hall,  in  Micro- 
cosm, Vol.  III.,  p.  283, 


122  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

Q,  36.  Does  cold  join  with  heat  to  restore  an  equi- 
librium— does  it  draw  heat? 

A,  No  more  than  an  empty  stomach  can  draw  a  loaf 
of  bread.* 

Q.  37.  If  cold  is  not  an  entity  and  positive  force,  how 
can  we  account  for  the  apparent  fact  that  it  solidifies 
water  and  other  liquid  forms  of  matter,  converts  mill- 
ponds  into  skating-rinks,  bursts  solid  masses  of  metal  by 
the  freezing  of  a  few  drops  of  water,  when  confined  within 
them,  and  turns  melted  mineral  into  pig-iron,  cog-wheels, 
and  cooking-stoves? 

A.  Scientifically  speaking,  cold  does  nothing  of  the 
kind.  It  is  the  radiation  or  departure  of  heat  from 
liquid  mineral  that  gives  cohesion  an  opportunity  to  re- 
assert its  power  in  restoring  mineral  matter  to  its  more 
normal  state.  The  same  is  true  in  the  freezing  of  water. 
Heat  radiates  from  water  as  long  as  its  temperature  is 
above  the  mean  temperature  of  all  adjacent  and  sur- 
rounding substance.  After  the  temperature  of  the  water 
is  thus  reduced  to  freezing  point,  any  farther  radiation 
restores  water  to  its  more  normal  condition — ice.f  The 

*  If  two  water-tanks,  one  full  and  the  other  empty,  were  con- 
nected at  the  bottom  by  an  open  faucet,  it  is  plain  that  the 
emptiness  of  the  one  tank  (corresponding  exactly  to  thermal  or 
magnetic  cold)  does  not  force  the  water  out  of  the  other  tank; 
but  it  merely  permits  the  water  to  run  out  by  a  law  of  Nature 
in  order  to  establish  an  aqueous  equilibrium.  How  plainly  this 
appeals  to  our  common  sense! — Ibid. 

f  Freezing  into  ice  and  expanding  into  greater  bulk,  are  not, 
therefore,  the  action  of  cold  at  all,  scientifically  spoaking,  but 
are  the  effect  of  the  natural  radiation  of  heat  from  the  liquid 
body  which  thereby  allows  it  to  return  to  its  normal  condition 
of  solid  ice.  The  bursting  of  a  mass  of  iron  by  the  expansion  of 
a  little  confined  water  in  the  act  of  turning  into  ice  is  not,  there- 
fore, properly  the  work  of  cold  in  any  positive  sense,  but  is 
simply  the  work  of  heat  in  the  act  of  withdrawing  by  radiation 


HEAT.  123 

normal  condition  of  water  requires  for  it  more  room  than 
when  cramped  up  in  its  abnormal  state  of  lukevvarmness; 
hence  the  bursting  of  the  metal  globe  or  vessel  in  which 
freezing  water  is  confined. 

Q.  38.  Why  does  congealed  water  require  more  room 
than  water  in  a  moderate  temperature  and  fluid  state? 

A.  Because  the  particles  when  thus  crystallized  will 
not  fit  together  with  the  same  compactness  as  when  in 
their  fluid  and  abnormal  condition.* 

Q.  39.  But  will  not  heated  water  also  burst  the  vessel 
in  which  an  attempt  is  made  to  confine  it;  and  if  so  does 

*  The  reason  why  ice  takes  up  more  room  in  the  act  of  form- 
ing than  liquid,  is  this:  the  particles  of  water  being  round  fall 
together  with  the  greatest  possible  compactness  and  with  the 
least  possible  intersticial  spaces  between  them,  thus  taking  up 
the  least  possible  room.  Now  it  is  evident  that  all  the  particles 
of  a  given  mass  of  water  would  not  radiate  their  heat  with  the 
same  facility,  or  at  the  same  instant.  Hence  those  particles  first 
giving  up  their  heat  will  form  themselves  into  crystallized  par- 
ticles of  irregular  shapes,  which  of  course  will  take  up  more  room 
than  the  perfectly  round  particles.  As  there  is  no  place  for  them 
they  commence  wedging  themselves  in  between  the  fluid  par- 
ticles, forcing  them  apart,  which  being  almost  entirely  incom- 
pressible (and  acting  also  as  frictionless  wedges — see  solution 
of  hydrostatic  pressure)  must  begin  to  exert  a  powerful  strain 
upon  the  inclosing  cylinder;  till  finally,  as  the  crystallization 
continues,  millions  of  these  infinitesimal  wedges  have  formed 
and  come  into  play,  thus  bursting  the  cylinder  asunder.  It  is 
simply  split  by  the  action  of  an  infinite  number  of  mechanical 
wedges.  That's  all.  Now  to  say  that  cold  bursts  the  cylinder, 
is  the  same  as  to  say  that  vacuum  crushes  the  thin  glass  receiver 
surrounding  it;  whereas  it  is  only  the  pressing  of  the  air  which 
causes  the  collapse. — Dr.  Hall  in  Microcosm;  Vol.  3.,  p.  214. 

from  the  inclosed  water,  thus  allowing  it  to  return  to  its  normal 
condition  or  more  enlarged  form  of  ice,  which  necessarily  bursts 
the  cylinder  containing  it. — Dr.  Hall,  in  the  Micrcosm,  Vol.  III., 
p.  3i4. 


124  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

it  not  follow  that  steam  like  ice  is  also  a  normal  condi- 
tion of  matter. 

A.  In  either  case  it  is  heat  which  causes  the  bursting 
of  the  vessel.  Cold  has  nothing  to  do  with  it  in  any 
positive  way.  As  Dr.  Hall  has  so  forcibly  illustrated 
with  the  thin  glass  receiver,  the  vacuum  does  not  do 
the  crushing;  it  is  the  work  of  the  air,  or  more  properly 
the  work  of  gravity  making  use  of  the  air  at  the  rate  'of 
fifteen  pounds  to  the  square  inch  on  the  outside.  Put  one 
receiver  into  another  and  pump  (radiate;)  out  all  the  air 
not  confined  within  the  inclosed  receiver,  and  the  result 
will  be  the  crushing  out  of  the  walls  of  the  small  re- 
ceiver. Hence  whether  crushed  in  or  .out  the  work  is 
performed  by  the  same  force.* 


*  Other  difficulties  have  been  suggested,  such,  for  example,  as 
the  fact  that  a  touch  of  the  naked  flesh  to  ice  in  the  polar  re- 
gions, at  forty  degiees  below  zero,  will  raise  a  blister  the  same 
as  would  the  touch  of  hot  iron,  and  will  even  cook  meats  the 
same  as  will  boiling  water.  Is  it  possible,  it  is  asked,  for  heat 
and  cold  both  to  produce  the  same  results,  and  one  of  them  be 
merely  the  absence  of  the  other  ?  We  answer,  as  before,  that 
cold  does  not  do  it,  strictly  speaking.  Our  key  will  unlock  even 
this  mystery.  Normally,  flesh  could  not  exist  at  all.  It  is  an 
abnormality,  a  creature  of  heat  operating  in  a  partial  degree  of 
intensity,  say  86  deg.  F.  Increase  this  heat  126  deg.,  or  to  212, 
and  flesh  is  disintegrated  or  destroyed  as  living  organic  sub- 
stance; reduce  this  same  heat,  which  allowed  flesh  to  organize, 
126  deg.,  or  to  40  below  zero,  thus  exposing  it  to  a  condition  in 
which  normally  it  could  not  have  come  into  existence  at  all, 
and  its  texture  is  equally  destroyed  as  living  flesh,  or,  in  other 
words,  it  is  cooked,  and  it  will  so  appear  when  returned  to  that 
degree  of  heat  which  organized  it.  Hence,  the  canning  of 
cooked  meats  is  claimed  to  be  done  as  effectually  by  the  absence 
of  heat  as  by  its  excess.  Thus  the  life-point  of  heat  for  organiz- 
ing flesh,  86  deg.  F.,  seems  to  be  exactly  midway  between  the 
twTo  extremes  of  heat  or  its  absence  where  flesh  will,  after  organ- 
ization, become  disintegrated;  or,  as  we  commonly  designate  it, 
cooked.  Keep  it  at  either  extreme,  and  it  will  not  putrify  for 


HEAT.  125 

Q.  40.  Is  it  true  that  heat  can  be  generated  by  the 
contact  of  a  moving  body  with  another  at  rest  or  in 
motion? 

A.  It  is  not  true,  save  so  far  as  such  stoppage  of  mo- 
tion by  contact  produces  friction  in  either  body  among 
its  displaced  particles.  Mere  contact  of  two  bodies,  where 
there  is  no  distortion  and  resultant  friction,  would  pro- 
duce no  appreciable  heat,  however  large  the  colliding 
bodies  might  be,  or  however  swift  their  motion  when 
coming  into  contact,  even  should  it  be  two  worlds  as 
large  as  our  own.  As  motion,  per  se,  is  absolutely  noth- 

ages— one  on  account  of  the  intensity  and  the  other  on  account 
of  the  want  of  heat,  but  neither  of  them  as  the  result  of  cold. 

Take  the  experiment  of  testing  the  temperature  of  different 
substances  in  a  room  where  they  are  equally  exposed  to  the 
same  degrees,  and  it  is  easily  explained  by  this  simple  philo- 
sophical law.  The  iron,  for  example,  is  certainly  colder  under 
the  same  conditions  of  exposure  than  would  be  an  equal  mass 
of  wool;  not  because  cold  is  a  substance,  or  because  it  can  get 
into  the  iron  with  better  facility  than  into  the  wool;  but  because 
substantial  heat  radiates  or  departs  from  iron  with  greater 
facility  than  from  wool,  and  thus  restores  it  quicker  to  its  nor- 
mal condition.  Indeed,  such  is  the  affinity  of  heat  for  wool  or 
fur  that  it  will  not  entirely  radiate  for  a  long  time,  even  in  a 
region  of  the  lowest  temperature.  Hence  the  heat  of  a  man's 
body  communicated  to  clothing  of  wool  is  retained  in  the 
woolen  fiber,  while  a  person  clothed  in  the  same  weight  of 
linen  might  freeze  to  death  because  of  its  greater  facility  to 
radiate  or  part  with  the  heat  of  the  person  wearing  it.  In  like 
manner  iron,  exposed  to  the  sun's  rays  above  a  medium  tem- 
perature, absorbs  heat  with  the  same  facility  with  which  it 
parts  with  it  in  excessive  cold,  or  cold  below  a  medium  tem- 
perature; while  with  wool  and  many  other  substances  it  is 
vice  versa.  Hence,  iron  in  a  hot  sun  will  blister  the  hand, 
while  the  heat  of  woolen  cloth,  similarly  exposed,  will  scarcely 
be  felt.  How  completely  all  this  harmonizes  with  the  views 
here  set  forth,  that  heat  is  the  only  real  entity  involved  in  the 
premises! — Dr.  Hall's  discussion  with  Dr.  Roberts  on  "cold" 
as  an  "  entity,"  in  the  Microcosm,  Vol.  III.,  p.  215, 


126  THE     SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

ing,  the  mere  stoppage  of  motion  cannot  produce  heat 
only  as  the  conflicting  inertia  of  the  two  bodies  causes 
displacement  of  their  particles  and  resultant  friction.  A 
leaden  bullet,  when  fired  from  a  gun  and  stopped  by  con- 
tact with  a  steel  target,  will  show  sensible  heat,  because 
in  flattening  out  its  particles  powerfully  abrade  each  other; 
but  fire  a  tempered  steel  bullet  and  stop  it  in  the  same 
way,  and  not  even  a  small  fraction  of  the  heat  observed 
in  the  lead  will  be  noticed,  because  there  can  be  but  very 
little  distortion  of  the  metal,  and  therefore  but  very  little 
friction  among  its  particles,  though  its  motion  was  just 
as  suddenly  stopped  as  in  the  case  of  the  leaden  bullet. 
Dr.  Hall  was  the  first  scientist  to  oppose  this  popular 
view  of  the  text-books,  that  the  mere  stoppage  of  motion 
will  generate  heat. 

Q.  41.  But  since  the  sudden  compression  of  air  or 
other  elastic  gas  is  known  to  generate  sensible  heat,  why 
should  not  mere  contact  of  weighty  bodies  produce  the 
same  effect? 

A.  It  is  a  serious  mistake  of  physicists  that  the  sud- 
den compression  of  air  under  a  piston  generates  any  sensi- 
ble heat,  the  only  heat  thus  generated  being  the  inappre- 
ciable modicum  caused  by  the  friction  of  the  air-particles 
among  themselves  and  against  the  sides  of  the  containing 
vessel,  an  amount  which  is  too  trifling  to  be  recorded  by 
the  most  sensitive  thermometer. 

Q.  42.  If  this  be  true,  how  is  it  that  a  piece  of  punk 
placed  in  a  tube  will  take  fire  by  the  sudden  compression 
of  the  air  upon  it  by  means  of  a  piston,  as  shown  by  Prof. 
Tyndall  in  his  "  Heat  as  a  Mode  of  Motion,"  and  his 
"Lectures  on  Sound'"? 

A.  The  substantial  heat  already  in  the  air  of  the  tube 
is  condensed  to  a  smaller  compass,  or  brought  within 
a  smaller  space,  and  to  the  same  degree  that  the  air  itself 
is  condensed  or  made  more  compact,  thus  intensifying 
the  heat  already  there,  and  not  in  any  sense  increasing 


HEAT.  127 

the  heat  by  compression.  This  new  law  in  physical  sci- 
ence, first  discovered  by  Dr.  Hall,  if  irrefutable,  over- 
turns the  entire  philosophy  of  heat  as  a  mode  of  motion, 
since  manifestly  nothing  can  be  condensed  into  a  smaller 
compass,  and  be  thereby  intensified  in  the  same  ratio, 
unless  it  be  a  substantial  entity,  either  material  or  imma- 
terial. As  well  insist  that  air  itself  is  a  mode  of  motion, 
and  not  a  substantial  entity,  since  it  shows  precisely  the 
same  result  of  increased  intensity  or  compactness  by  com- 
pression, as  does  the  heat  contained  in  it  before  the  piston 
moves.  * 

*  Having  already  shown,  according  to  the  current  theory  of 
acoustics,  that  the  locust,  which  is  able  to  fill  four  cubic  miles  of 
air  with  its  sound,  ought  also  to  fill  the  same  air  with  heat, 
whether  its  stridulating  force  sent  out  shall  result  in  sound  or 
not,  we  now  come  to  another  phase  of  the  discussion,  namely,  the 
real  effect  of  atmospheric  condensations  and  rarefactions,  as  re- 
lates to  the  heat  and  cold  observed  in  the  same;  and  we  have  no 
hesitation  in  promising  the  critical  reader  in  advance  one  of  the 
most,  if  not  the  most,  important  scientific  discussions  in  this 
connection  which  we  have  ever  had  the  honor  of  producing 
in  these  pages. 

At  the  very  threshold  of  the  argument,  therefore,  we  venture 
to  announce  what  we,  as  well  as  others,  regard  as  a  new  and 
most  revolutionary  law  in  physical  science,  to  wit:  that  the  heat 
observed,  when  a  mass  of  air  is  suddenly  condensed,  is  not  "  gen- 
crated  "  at  all  by  such  act  of  condensation,  as  the  present  theory 
teaches,  but  that  it  was  already  in  the  air  and  to  the  same 
amount  precisely  before  the  condensing  operation  was  com- 
menced, its  apparent  "generation"  being  only  the  concentration 
of  this  substantial  heat  to  a  smaller  space,  thereby  intensifying 
it  in  the  same  ratio  as  the  air  containing  it  was  reduced  in 
volume. 

If  this  law  be  true,  it  necessarily  overturns  the  present  theory 
of  "  heat  as  a  mode  of  motion,"  and  demonstrates  heat  to  be  a 
real  substantial  entity,  or  objective  existence,  as  much  so  as  is 
the  air,  only  that  heat  is  an  immaterial,  while  air  is  a  material 
substance.  For  surely  if  heat  is  capable  of  being  condensed, 
an<l  thereby  concentrated  to  greater  intensity,  the  same  as  is  the 


128  THE  SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

Q.  43.  Is  heat  "a  motor  power  in  the  mechanical  and 
commercial  industries  of  the  world? 

A.  It  has  been  so  utilized  for  more  than  eighty  years, 
and  will  probably  be  so  applied  in  the  future  until  the 
inventive  genius  of  man  shall  triumph  in- the  discovery  of 
some  force  more  powerful  or  of  some  new  application  of 
force  in  a  manner  that  will  render  it  more  powerful  and 
economical  in  the  performance  of  the  same  or  similar 
service. 

Q.  44.     But  is  it  not  the  elastic  force  of  steam  which 

air  containing  it,  it  must  in  all  reason  be  as  really  a  substantial 
entity  as  is  the  air  itself. 

The  present  theory  teaches  that  the  heat  observed,  when  con- 
fined air  is  compressed,  is  actually  "  generated,"  or  conies  into 
existence,  by  the  conversion  of  the  mechanical  force  which  was 
expended  in  compressing  the  air:  not  one  single  physicist  having 
conceived  the  idea,  so  far  as  the  record  shows,  that  by  putting 
two  volumes  of  air  into  the  space  of  one  we  necessarily  put  the 
two  volumes  of  substantial  heat  contained  in  the  air  into  the 
space  of  one,  thus  doubling  its  intensity.  This  position,  there- 
fore, if  true,  is  so  revolutionary  and  startling,  in  the  very  face 
of  the  present  theory  of  "heat  as  a  mode  of  motion,  "that  it 
cannot  be  too  carefully  analyzed  and  impressed  upon  the 
reader's  mind. 

We  do  not  wish  it  to  be  inferred,  from  this  assumed  law,  that 
we  discard  the  fact  of  the  conversion  of  mechanical  force  into 
heat,  as  well  as  into  light,  electricity,  sound,  magnetism,  and 
even  other  forms  of  force.  In  the  usual  experiment  of  com- 
pressing air  into  a  tube  by  means  of  a  tightly-fitting  piston, 
there  is  no  doubt  that  a  slight  but  inappreciable  amount  of  heat 
is  generated  by  the  friction  of  the  piston  against  the  sides  of  the 
tube,  and  also  by  the  friction  of  the  air  particles  against  each 
other  in  the  act  of  being  compressed,  which  trifling  heat  may  be 
properly  attributed  to  the  conversion  of  mechanical  force;  but 
this  is  by  no  means  the  intense  increase  of  heat  observed  in  the 
compressed  air,  nor  has  it  anything  to  do  with  the  heat  claimed 
to  be  "  generated"  in  such  experiments,  as  taught  by  the  whole 
scientific  world.  This  will  be  shown  so  clearly  as  to  satisfy 
every  attentive  reader. — Dr.  Hall  in  Microcosm,  Vol.  V,  p.  160, 


HEAT.  129 

drives  the  engine  and  moves  the  cargoes  of  commerce  to 
the  marts  of  the  world? 

A.  The  text-books  so  teach;*  but  they  are  radically 
wrong.  As  shown  in  a  former  chapter  of  this  book,  elas- 
ticity, while  it  is  a  very  peculiar  property  in  matter  by 
which  cohesive  attraction  is  enabled  to  become  a  con- 
structive force  in  nature,  it  is  not  strictly  a  force  element, 
but  rather  a  property  of  matter. 

Q.  45.  Has  heat,  as  a  motor  power,  anything  analo- 
gous among  the  other  forces  of  nature? 

A.  It  has.  Gravity  uses  water  to  turn  the  water- 
wheel  of  the  mill,  as  shown  in  Chapter  VI.,  and  heat 
uses  steam  to  whirl  the  burs  and  press-rollers  of  the 
flouring-mill  and  to  drive  the  multiplied  and  multiform 
machineries  of  the  world's  busy  workshop. 

Q.  46.  What  will  be  the  final  result  of  the  rapid 
strides  now  being  made  by  the  inventive  genius,  utilita- 
rian tact  and  grand  achievements  in  the  world's  march 
of  progress? 

A.  The  effect  upon  science,  which  is  now,  as  never 
before,  learning  to  see  God's  invisible  things  in  Nature, 
and  to  trace  their  origin  back  to  the  Divine  hand  and 
the  Divine  substance,  will  be  to  make  it  more  devout,  and, 
in  its  increased  devotion  to  the  truth,  make  religion  more 
scientific.! 

*  See  "  Steele's  Nat.  Philosophy,"  p.  247. 

f  To  illustrate:  If  the  engine  moves,  we  know  it  must  be  by 
the  force  of  the  steam  behind  the  piston;  but  what  moves  the 
steam  ?  It,  too,  must  have  a  force  behind  it  by  which  it  acts, 
as  steam  is  as  much  an  inert  entity  as  the  water  from  which  it 
has  been  expanded  into  vapor.  That  force  which  makes  steam 
effective  is  heat.  But  heat,  again,  is  an  entity— a  substantial, 
objective,  finite,  or  limited  thing — and  as  such  can  only  act,  and 
thereby  move  the  water,  changing  it  into  vapor,  thereby  acting 
on  the  piston,  thereby  moving  the  engine,  thereby  propelling  the 


130  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

train,  and,  finally,  transporting  the  passengers.  What  force  is 
it  that  moves  this  substantial  heat  into  effective  action?  *  *  * 
Does  not  wisdom,  then,  utter  her  voice  and  cry  aloud  even  in 
the  streets,  assuring  us  that  there  must  of  necessity  be  an  ulti- 
mate, intelligent,  self-existent,  and  unoriginated  fountain  of 
force  as  the  moving  power  of  all  the  forces,  and  other  entities  in 
nature,  and  as  the  primordial  First  Cause  of  all  the  minor  causes 
in  this  universe  which  come  within  the  observation  of  sentient 
beings? — Dr.  Hall,  in  Scientific  Arena,  Vol.  I.,  p.  13. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE   NATURE   OF   LIGHT. 

QUESTION  1.     What  is  light? 

ANSWER.  Light  is  that  form  of  physical  force  by 
which  the  sense  of  sight  in  men  and  animals  is  addressed 
and  affected. 

Q.  2.  Is  light  anything  different  and  distinct  from  the 
effects  or  sensations  produced  thereby? 

A.  There  is  as  much  difference  and  distinction  be- 
tween the  two  as  there  is  between  odor  and  the  sensation 
of  smelling,  or  any  other  force  in  Nature  and  its  phenom- 
enal effects.  Light  exists  external  to  our  senses.  If  it 
had  no  such  external  existence,  it  could  not  so  act  upon 
our  organs  of  sight,  or  come  into  such  contact  with  the 
retina  as  to  bring  distant  objects  within  the  compass  of 
our  observation  and  under  the  power  of  our  recognition. 

Q.  3.  Is  light,  then,  an  objective  entity  without  any 
dependent  relation  to  that  which  it  may  produce  in  the 
way  of  subjective  experience? 

A.  Its  existence  is  as  really  objective  as  that  of  the 
sun;  and  Milton  merely  echoed  back  the  revealed  truth 
of  God  when  his  pen  recorded  the  poetic  sentiment: 

"Before  the  sun, 

Before  the  heavens  thou  wert,  and  at  the  voice 
Of  God  as  with  a  mantle  didst  invest 
The  rising  world  of  waters  dark  and  deep." 

Q.  4.  If  light  is  an  objective  entity,  may  it  not  be  a 
subject  for  scientific  investigation,  in  search  of  what  it  is 


132  THE   SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

per  se,  without  primary  reference  to  that  branch  of  phys- 
ical science  called  optics,  as  usually  treated  in  the  text- 
books? 

A.  The  effects  and  phenomena  of  an  entity  may  assist 
us  in  our  attempts  to  attain  to  a  correct  knowledge  of  the 
nature  of  such  entity;  yet  the  investigation  of  the  sub- 
ject in  search  after  the  real  nature  of  the  objective  entity 
should  be  held  as  something  entirely  distinct  from  any 
consideration  of  or  inquiry  into  its  phenomena. 

Q.  5.  How  may  the  positive  investigation  of  an 
entity  be  gradually  approached? 

A.  By  considering  it  negatively,  or  as  to  what  it  is 
not.  This  implies  also  the  clearing  away  of  any  false  or 
defective  theories  which  may  have  stood  in  the  way  of 
science,  in  its  attempts  to  attain  to  a  more  perfect 
knowledge  of  the  real  nature  of  such  entity. 

Q.  6.  What  two  theories  of  light  have  been  assumed 
as  correct  and  taught  in  connection  with  the  science  of 
optics  during  the  last  few  hundred  years? 

A.     The  Emission  theory  and  the  Undulatory  theory. 

Q.  7.  When  and  by  whom  was  the  emission  theory 
originated? 

A.  It  seems  probable  from  the  readings  of  history, 
that  it  began  to  take  form  under  the  powerful  mind  of 
Descartes,  in  the  first  part  of  the  17th  century,  and 
reached  its  highest  form  of  defective  perfection,  as  well 
as  the  earliest  stage  of  its  abandonment,  under  the  math- 
ematical genius  of  Newton  in  the  beginning  of  the  fol- 
lowing century  of  the  Christian  era. 

Q.  8.     What  was  the  emission  theory. 

A.  That  light  consisted  of  material  corpuscles  or  little 
luminous  balls  sent  off  from  the  luminous  bodies,  and  by 
virtue  of  their  supposed  elasticity*  bounded  and  re- 

*The  property  of  elasticity  has  been  superficially  mistaken  by 
all  writers  on  physical  science,  ancient  and  modern,  for  one  of 


THE  NATURE  OF  LIGHT.  133 

bounded  through  space  and  all  transparent  media  at  the 
enormous  velocity  observed,  entering  our  eyes,  and  thus 
causing  the  sensation  of  sight. 

Q.  9.  Was  it  really  held  and  taught  as  science  that 
these  luminous  balls  were  of  material  substance? 

A.  The  popular  scientists,  then  as  now,  had  no  proper 
conception  of  any  other  than  material  substance. 

Q.  10.     What  is  the  undulatory  theory? 

A.  Truth  and  justice  require  that  it  be  defined  by  one 
of  its  ablest  apostles  and  scholarly  friends.  Prof.  J.  Dor- 
man  Steele,  on  page  189  of  his  "  Fourteen  Weeks  in 
Philosophy/' says:  "The  Undulatory  TJieory  of  Light. — 
There  is  supposed  to  be  a  fluid  termed  ether,  constituting 
a  kind  of  universal  atmosphere,  diffused  throughout  all 
space.  It  is  so  subtile  that  it  fills  the  pores  of  all  bodies, 
eludes  all  chemical  tests,  passes  in  through  the  glass  re- 
ceiver, and  remains  even  in  the  vacuum  of  an  air-pump. 
A  luminous  body  sets  in  motion  waves  of  ether,  which 
pass  off  in  every  direction.  These  [waves]  move  at  the 
rate  of  183,000  miles  per  second,  and  breaking  upon  the 
eye,  give  to  us  the  impression  of  sight.  This  ethereal 

the  forces  of  nature,  instead  of  being,  as  it  is,  the  effect  of  force 
merely.  This  error  runs  through  every  text-book  we  take  up, 
and  the  most  critical  investigators,  we  are  sorry  to  say,  even 
after  their  attention  has  been  called  to  it,  still  persist,  on  ac- 
count of  their  prejudice  or  habits  of  thinking,  in  trying  to  make 
a  plausible  showing  of  argument  in  defense  of  this  most  un- 
scientific blunder  of  their  predecessors. 

We  are  humbly  proud  of  the  honor,  and  we  say  it  without 
boasting,  of  having  been  the  first  to  announce  the  true  expla- 
nation of  elasticity  as  in  no  sense  a  force,  but  as  a  char- 
acteristic or  property  of  a  material  body  superinduced  by  the 
action  and  persistence  of  the  force  of  cohesion  in  so  arranging 
and  sustaining  the  particles  of  the  body  in  relation  to  each 
other  as  to  permit  the  mechanical  force,  after  distorting  the 
body,  to  store  itself  up  in  it,  and  thus  react,  when  outside  re- 
sistance is  removed,  by  which  to  restore  the  distorted  body  to 
its  original  form.— See  Microcosm,  Vol.  IV.,  pp.  346,  347. 


134  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

wave-motion  is  precisely  like  that  of  sound,  except  that 
the  vibrations  are  transverse  (crosswise)  to  the  line  of 
direction." 

Q.  11.  What  is  the  fundamental  diiference  between 
the  two  theories? 

A.  According  to  the  emission  theory,  light  is  the  trans- 
ference of  luminous  matter;  according  to  the  undulatory 
theory,  it  is  the  vibration  or  motion  of  something  "sup- 
posed "  to  be  ether. 

Q.  12.  By  what  other  name  was  the  emission  theory 
called? 

A.     It  was  known  also  as  the  corpuscular  theory. 

Q.  13.  Were  these  coi^mscles,  of  which  light  was  sup- 
posed to  consist,  material  or  immaterial? 

A.  As  already  stated,  in  answer  to  Question  9,  before 
the  appearance  of  the  "  Problem  of  Human  Life,"  the 
world  had  never  conceived  of  anything  like  immaterial 
corpuscles. 

Q.  14.  Did  Newton  finally  abandon  his  emission  the- 
ory of  light? 

A.  He  does  not  seem  to  have  continued  holding  it 
with  clear  conviction  and  entire  satisfaction  after  the 
undulatory  theory  had  been  introduced.* 

Q.  15.  Was  it  supported  by  the  testimony  of  observed 
facts? 

•*  With  a  moment's  reflection,  the  reason  must  be  clear  to 
every  reader,  why  Sir  Isaac  Newton  could  not  maintain  his 
corpuscular  or  emission  theory  of  light;  for  a  more  unreasona- 
ble or  impossible  hypothesis  was  never  propounded.  How  he 
could,  for  a  moment,  have  supposed  that  "material  particles" 
however  minute,  could  penetrate  and  pass  through  the  hardest 
crystals — even  diamonds— without  meeting  with  resistance,  to 
say  nothing  of  pouring  into  the  eye  at  such  an  enormous  velocity 
without  injury  to  that  delicate  organ,  is  one  of  those  profound 
mysteries  which  great  scientists  are  called  upon  to  explain. — Dr. 
Hall,  in  Microcosm,  Vol.  II.,  p.  351. 


THE  NATURE  OF  LIGHT.  ,          135 

A.  Indeed  it  was  not.  On.  the  contrary,  its  assump- 
tions were  proven  false  by  the  inexorable  logic  of  math- 
ematics as  applied  in  calculating  the  astounding  velocity 
of  light. 

Q.  16.     What  did  such  applied  mathematics  show? 

A.  That  light  had  nearly  a  million  times  the  velocity 
of  sound  through  the  atmosphere.  This  was  considered 
too  much  speed  for  the  travel  of  matter,  even  though 
the  luminous  balls  of  matter  were  supposed  to  be  small 
enough  to  be  called  corpuscles. 

Q.  17.  What  insuperable  incongruity  stood  in  the 
way  of  the  emission  theory? 

A.  It  was  out  of  harmony  with  the  undulatory  theory 
of  sound,  which  then,  as  now,  taught  that  sound  con- 
sisted of  atmospheric  waves. 

Q.  18.  What  was  done  to  bring  agreement  and  har- 
mony among  the  several  members  in  the  family  of 
physical  sciences? 

A.  The  theories  of  heat  and  light  were  both  so  recon- 
structed as  to  bring  them  into  greater  harmony  with  the 
science  of  acoustics. 

Q.  19.  Did  the  change  of  light  and  heat  into  modes 
of  motion  really  harmonize  physical  science  as  taught 
at  that  time? 

A.  Not  by  any  means.  This  change,  so  far  from  har- 
monizing science  and  reconciling  its  discrepancies, 
merely  subverted  two  of  the  forces  (light  and  heat)  from 
an  already  false  basis  (material  corpuscles)  to  another 
false  basis  (material  wave-motion)  by  which  to  make 
them  conform  to  another  and  underlying  false  basis  (air- 
waves in  sound),  thereby  trying  to  bring  about  the  im- 
possible harmonious  congruity  of  error  as  the  result. 
Yet  when  these  three  forces  were  thus  temporarily  rec- 
onciled, there  stood  directly  in  the  face  of  this  patched- 
up  scientific  truce,  the  overwhelming  fact  that  odor  was 


136  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

known  and  admitted  to  be  real  substantial  emanations 
by  which  the  sense  of  smell  is  addressed  by  the  actual 
contact  of  odorous  particles  with  the  nasal  membrane, 
and  that  no  mode-of-motion  theory  or  wave-hypothesis 
could  swerve  this  sensation-producing  cause  from  its 
substantial  anchorage  as  a  scientific  fact. 

Q.  20.  Did  the  scientists  of  that  age,  in  their  discus- 
sions of  light  and  their  final  abandonment  of  the  cor- 
puscular theory,  ever  acknowledge  the  difficulty  of  odor 
standing  in  their  way? 

A.  No;  so  far  from  acknowledging  it,  they  apparently 
ignored  it,  as  have  done  all  other  scientists  since  their 
day  when  discussing  light,  heat  and  sound  as  modes  of 
motion.  One  of  those  early  scientists  gave  it  as  the 
strongest  possible  analogical  proof  that  light  must  be  the 
wave-motion  of  some  kind  of  substance,  since  it  would 
be  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  Nature  would  make  such 
an  abrupt  leap  from  the  sense  of  hearing,  addressed  by 
wave-motion,  to  that  of  sight  addressed  by  the  contact 
of  substantial  light-particles.  Yet  these  great  physicists 
overlooked  the  fact,  that  they  had  forced  Nature  to  leap 
just  as  abruptly  from  the  sense  of  smell,  addressed  by 
actual  substance,  to  the  sense  of  hearing  influenced  alone 
by  wave-motion!  The  author  of  the  "  Problem  of 
Human  Life  "  was  the  first  writer  on  record  to  introduce 
in  these  discussions  the  senses  of  touch,  taste  and  smell, 
and  the  substantial  agents  which  actuate  those  senses,  as 
an  overwhelming  analogical  proof  that  the  other  senses, 
as  well  as  sensation-producing  causes,  must  continue 
right  along  the  line  with  the  same  substantial  order  of 
things,  merely  grading  the  refinement  of  the  substantial 
contacts  to  suit  the  various  senses,  and  thus  to  correspond 
with  their  delicate  structure. 

Q.  21.  What  other  objection  has  since  been  raised  to 
the  emission  theory  of  light? 

A.     It   has   been  found  by  careful  calculation  to  be 


THE  NATURE  OF  LIGHT.  137 

dangerous  to  the  delicate  little  membrane  known  as  the 
retina  of  the  eye,  as  well  as  destructive  of  its  own  eyes 
when  once  exposed  to  the  incandescent  light  of  true 
science. 

Q.  22.  How  can  it  be  made  to  appear  as  something 
dangerous  to  the  eyes? 

A.  The  degree  of  perfection  to  which  the  science  of 
optics  has  been  carried,  even  though  conducting  its  in- 
vestigations upon  a  radical  misapprehension  as  to  the 
nature  of  light,  accompanied  by  a  careful  examination 
of  the  eye,  has  shown,  in  a  manner  most  alarmingly  con- 
clusive, that  the  organ  of  sight  is  such  a  delicate  piece 
of  anatomy  that  it  can  no  longer  endure  to  be  shot  at 
from  some  great  celestial  gun,  charged  with  mysterious 
dynamics  and  multiplied  bullets  every  time  the  eyelid  is 
raised  and  the  retina  exposed  to  the  enfilading  fires  of 
the  emission  battery. 

Q.  23.  Did  the  emission  theory  really  involve  such  a 
dangerous  doctrine  ? 

A.  It  has  been  settled  beyond  dispute,  by  the  assist- 
ance of  the  science  of  astronomy,  as  applied  in  observing 
the  motions  of  Jupiter's  moons  when  passing  into  the 
shadow  of  that  planet,  and  by  the  conclusions  reached 
from  other  confirmatory  observations,  that  light  moves 
with  a  velocity  of  not  less  than  180,000  miles  per  second. 
Now  this  was  considered  to  be  decidedly  unsafe  for  any- 
body's eyes,  especially  for  eyes  affected  and  afflicted 
with  unscientific  myopy,  and  it  was  finally  decided  either 
to  get  out  of  the  destructive  range  of  the  emission  guns 
or  to  invent  some  other  theory,  more  easily  managed  and 
less  dangerous  to  the  very  valuable  organ  of  human 
vision. 

Q.  24.  But  were  not  these  material  particles  or 
luminous  bullets  very  small? 

A.  They  were  almost  infinitesimally  small,  it  is  true, 
but  the  astounding  velocity  with  which  they  flew  would 


138  THE  SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

still  give  them  a  very  dangerous  quantity  of  momentum, 
according  to  the  truth  of  the  generally  admitted  formula 
that  "  the  momentum  is  always  proportioned  to  the 
quantity  of  matter  multiplied  into  the  velocity."  Just 
think  of  several  thousand  little  bullets  shot  into  one's 
eyes  with  several  hundred  times  the  velocity  of  a  rifle- 
ball! 

Q.  25.  But  were  not  these  little  luminosities  impon- 
derable— without  any  weight? 

A.  According  to  the  theory  of  which  they  were  a 
part,  they  were  material.  Being  material,  they  must 
have  had  the  properties  of  matter.  Ponderability  is  one 
property  of  matter.  As  each  material  corpuscle,  there- 
fore, was  a  fraction  of  a  pound,  as  to  its  quantity,  its 
weight  must  have  had  the  same  fractional  proportion. 

Q.  26.     So  the  emission  theory  had  to  pass  away? 

A.  Like  the  wave-theory  of  sound  at  the  present  time, 
it  began  gradually  to  recede. 

Q.  27.  What  should  then  have  been  introduced  in  its 
stead? 

A.     The  theory  of  substantial  immaterial  substance. 

Q.  28.     Was  it  not  then  suggested? 
A.     It  was  not  even  dreamed  of. 

Q.  29.     Why  not? 

A.  God's  set  time  to  favor  science  in  such  form  had 
not  yet  come.  The  Malakhoff  of  all  the  physical  sciences 
was  yet  held  by  the  old  false  theory  of  sound,  and  it  was 
simply  impossible  to  conceive,  formulate,  and  hold  a  cor- 
rect theory  of  light  as  long  as  the  citadel  of  acoustical 
science  was  occupied  in  ignorance  of  the  truth,  even 
though  its  ramparts  were  strong  in  nothing  but  the  ac- 
cumulated moss  of  past  centuries.  If  the  true  theory  of 
sound,  as  advanced  by  Dr.  Hall  in  his  writings,  and  as 
formulated  in  Chapter  X.  of  this  book,  had  then  been 
suggested,  the  intellectual  and  moral  giants  of  the  sev- 


THE  NATURE  OP  LIGHT.  139 

cnteenth  century,  instead  of  barricading  themselves  be- 
hind their  prejudices,  would  have  repented  in  dust  and 
ashes  for  the  nonsense  which  they  previously  held  con- 
cerning these  forces  of  Nature.  But  they  never  saw  the 
truth  in  the  light  of  the  glorious  sunrise  of  Substantial- 
ism;  and  for  that  reason  they  shall  be  able  to  rise  up  in 
judgment  and  condemn  much  that  is  popularly  unscien- 
tific in  this  generation. 

Q.  30.     What  was  substituted  for  the  emission  theory? 

A.     The  undulatory  theory  of  light. 

Q.  31.     In  what  did  it  differ  from  the  former? 

A.  It  rejected,  or  denied,  the  materiality  of  the  rays 
or  beams  of  light,  and  substituted  motion  for  matter. 

Q.  32.     Motion  of  what? 

A.  Yes,  there  now,  dear  reader.  That  question  is 
very  hard  to  answer.  It  has  been  called  motion  of 
energy  without  any  clear  conception  or  definition  as  to 
what  is  meant  by  energy.  The  text- books  are  full  of  cir- 
cular syllogisms.  They  talk  about  the  properties  and  laws 
of  light  without  any  conception  of  entitative  light  upon 
the  subject.  To  assume  the  existence  of  motion  without 
something  to  move  may  do  in  the  sphere  of  abstractions, 
but  it  will  not  do  in  a  world  of  concrete  realities.  Such 
talk  is  just  about  as  rational  and  satisfactory  to  scientific 
minds  as  it  would  be  for  a  hungry  man  to  attempt  to 
take  breakfast  on  motion,  dinner  on  vibration  and  supper 
on  obtuse  angles  and  abstract  zigzags. 

Q.  33.     Did  not  the  theory  meet  with  some  opposition 
at  its  first  introduction? 
A.     Indeed  it  did. 

Q.  34.     What  was  the  ground  of  such  opposition? 

A.  It  was  rationally  claimed  that  there  could  be  no 
vibration  where  there  was  nothing  to  vibrate — no  reflec- 
tion where  there  was  not  something  to  reflect.  And  as 
it  was  known  that  the  atmosphere  of  our  planet  did  not 


140  THE  SUBSTANTIAL    PHILOSOPHY. 

extend  more  than  t\vo  milliontlis  of  the  distance  to  the 
sun,  the  difficulty  was  to  get  the  rays  of  light  down  from 
the  vicinity  of  that  luminous  orb  in  the  shape  of  vibra- 
tions without  something  to  vibrate. 

Q.  35.  What  was  done  in  the  extreme  exigency  of  the 
case? 

A.  Some  of  the  great  minds  of  that  Newtonian  age 
began  to  stir  up  the  latent  powers  of  their  inventive  gen- 
ius. About  that  time  a  prolific  Dutchman,  who  was 
already  rising  to  eminence  as  a  physicist,  came  over 
from  Holland  and  suggested  ether  as  the  very  thing  that 
was  required  to  keep  the  light  turned  on. 

Q.  36.  But  was  not  ether  an  article  of  mythologic 
and  scientific  faith  before  the  time  of  Huygens? 

A.  Yes,  some  of  the  poets  had  already  sung  its 
praises  as  something  intimately  related  to  their  most  ex- 
cellent gods.  Some  had  invoked  their  deities  to  teach 
them  how  to  strike  their  lyres  and  send  their  loftiest 
strains  abroad  and  up  through  ether's  boundless  temple. 
Some  praised  it  as  the  "  supposed  "  primordial  principle 
of  fire;  others  sought  its  acquaintance  that  they  might 
do  it  homage  as  the  worshipful  source  of  all  being. 
Descartes  even  intimated  that  it  was  the  medium  through 
which  light  came  down  from  the  skies;  but  it  remained 
for  Huygens  to  invent  it  in  such  fluid  form  and  obliging 
subtileness  as  to  meet  the  requirements  of  that  peculiar 
scientific  crisis. 

Q.  37.  Has  the  great  invention  of  Huygens  been  prop- 
erly valued  by  the  scientific  world? 

A.  His  services  have  been  fully  appreciated,  especially 
by  the  advocates  of  the  undulatory  theory  of  light. 

Q.  38.  Why  do  they  have  such  high  appreciation  of 
his  services  in  this  particular  department  of  physical 
science? 

A.     The  reason  is  obvious.     Something  of  the  kind  was 


THE  NATURE  OF  LIGHT.  141 

an  absolute  necessity.  Without  ether  the  undulatory 
theory  could  have  had  no  existence.  Ether  was  the  anaes- 
thetic administered  to  both  mother  and  child  upon  the 
occasion  of  the  uncomely  baby's  birth.  The  theory  in- 
hales ether  as  the  breath  of  its  precarious  life,  and  upon 
ether  it  has  subsisted  for  200  years.  In  ether  it  lives  and 
moves  and  has  its  being,  and  with  ethereal  luster  shines. 

Q.  39.  What  evidence  is  there  that  there  is  such  an 
element  in  existence? 

A.  The  only  evidence  of  its  existence  is  supposition. 
( '  There  is  supposed  to  be  a  fluid  termed  ether/'  says  the 
text-book  before  us.  The  undulatory  theory  is  built 
upon  ether,  ether  rests  upon  supposition,  and  the  suppo- 
sition is  based  upon  a  radical  misapprehension  of  Nat- 
ure's forces.  Such  a  theory  is  rather  too  ethereal  for  any 
earthly  use.  For  our  part,  we  would  sooner  have  a  few 
of  Newton's  material  corpuscles  shoot  us  in  the  eyes  than 
to  be  made  so  unscientifically  blind  by  the  transverse 
vibrations  of  an  ethereal  supposition. 

Q.  40.  Have  we  no  evidence  of  the  existence  of  ether 
through  the  testimony  of  the  senses?* 

*  Well,  what  was  all  this  prodigious  discovery  of  ether  for; 
and  what  was  it  that  led  to  this  scientific  leap  from  the  frying- 
pan  into  the  fire  ?  Why,  it  all  came  from  the  apparent  difficulty 
of  light-refraction  in  water,  and  occurred  solely  because  New- 
ton and  Huygens  did  not  grasp  at  that  time  the  true  and  beauti- 
ful doctrine  of  Substantialism.  Had  they  realized  that  light 
was  an  incorporeal  substance  instead  of  matter,  they  would 
have  had  no  more  difficulty  in  explaining  refraction  by  waves 
or  pulses  of  substantial  light  itself,  than  by  waves  of  substan- 
tial ether  for  the  existence  of  which  there  has  never  been  either 
use  or  evidence.  And  further,  had  they  been  fortunate  enough 
at  that  time  to  have  caught  the  broad  idea  of  innumerable  im- 
material substances,  it  is  plain  to  reason  that  not  only  light  but 
sound  itself  would  for  a  hundred  years  up  to  this  date  have 
been  taught  as  substantial  emissions  in  all  the  colleges  of  the 
world,  instead  of  being  held  as  the  nonsensical  wave-motions  of 


142  THE   SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

A.  None  whatever.  Eye  hath  not  seen  it,  ear  luith 
not  heard  it,  neither  hath  it  offered  testimony  to  the 
gustatory  nerve.  It  has  never  been  recognized  through 
the  olfactory  organ  of  our  sensuous  being;  neither  has  it 
evoked  our  recognition  by  any  tactile  touch. 

Q.  41.  But  may  not  the  same  be  said  of  the  immate- 
rial forces  which  underlie  the  whole  system  of  the  Sub- 
stantial Philosophy? 

A.  No,  indeed.  The  works  which  these  forces,  man- 
ifestly perform  bear  testimony  of  their  real  entitative  ex- 
istence. The  advocates  of  the  undulatory  doctrine  of 
light  admit  their  existence,  and  dispute  their  substantial 
character  for  no  other  obvious  reason  than  that  such  ad- 
mission would  destroy  the  necessity  for  their  ether,  sap 
the  foundation  of  their  theory,  and  tumble  the  whole 
miserable  mendicancy  of  its  nonsense  into  merited  ruin 
and  rubbish.  The  substantial  force-elements  of  Nature 
authenticate  themselves  through  the  right  use  of  the 
faculty  of  reason,  when  exercised  with  rational  scientific 
faith,  while  ether  is  absolutely  unknown,  except  through 
the  tactile  touch  of  supposition. 

Q.  42.  May  not  the  motions  of  the  ether- waves,  as 
supposed  and  taught  in  the  undulatory  theory  of  light, 
cause  the  sensation  of  seeing  by  the  tremulous  action  of 
such  refined  form  of  matter  against  the  optic  nerve,  sim- 
ilar to  the  action  of  sound-waves  in  air,  and  their  tremu- 
lous effect  upon  the  ear-drum? 

A.  No;  for  while  such  an  assumption  is  forced  and 
far-fetched,  it  has  not  one  rational  analogy  in  Nature  to 
justify  it,  as  will  be  more  fully  shown  when  we  come  to 
treat  of  the  nature  of  sound.  Motion  of  itself  is  noth- 
ing but  the  changing  position  of  some  substance  in  space, 

the  air;  and  the  author  of  the  "Problem"  would  have  been 
spared  the  terrific  battles  with  stubborn  scientists  he  has  been 
obliged  to  fight  during  the  last  two  years. — Dr.  Hall,  in  Micro- 
cosm, Vol.  II.,  p.  351. 


THE   NATURE   OF   LIGHT.  143 

and  if  any  substance  changes  position,  however  tenuous 
or  refined  such  substance  may  be,  it  can  only  be  in  con- 
sequence of  a  substantial  force  acting  upon  it.  Hence, 
if  such  a  material  substance  as  ether  exists,  it  must 
change  its  position  in  order  to  move  and  thus  act  upon 
the  optic  nerve  in  the  form  of  waves  or  undulations;  and 
such  action  must  be  caused  by  the  operation  of  some 
force.  Why  not  then  assume  this  force,  which  is  thus 
required  to  put  the  material  ether  into  motion,  to  be  the 
light  itself,  acting  directly  upon  the  sense-nerve,  and 
thus  avoid  a  useless  circumlocution?  This  would  bo  the 
rational  view  to  take,  since  the  ether  being  an  inert  ma- 
terial substance,  according  to  the  undulatory  theory,  can 
no  more  move  of  itself,  or  without  the  application  of 
an  adequate  force,  than  can  a  granite  rock  ? 

Q.  43.  To  what  extent  is  this  mythical  element  sup- 
posed to  exist? 

A.  It  fills  all  space,  surrounds  all  worlds,  and  pours  it- 
self through  the  interstices  of  all  matter.  The  founders 
and  advocates  of  the  undulatory  theory  of  light  were  not 
parsimonious  in  making  provisions  for  its  maintenance 
in  the  future.  They  seemed  to  fear  that  in  the  march  of 
revolutionary  progress  something  more  substantial  might 
arise  above  the  sombrous  horizon' of  such  superficial 
science.  Seeing  that  the  known  universe  was  every- 
where filled  with  light,  and  that  all  the  lamps  in  heaven's 
illumined  chamber  were  burning  in  constant  brilliancy, 
the  undulatory  gods  became  generous  in  the  exercise  of 
their  creative  power,  and  sent  large  quantities  of  this 
supposed  commodity  into  every  longitude  and  latitude  of 
interstellar  space. 

Q.  44.  What  are  the  alleged  properties  of  this  sup- 
posed ether? 

A.  Those  who  have  a  suppositional  acquaintance 
speak  of  it  as  being,  like  their  theory  of  light,  exceed- 
ingly thin  and  subtile,  with  power  to  elude  all  chemical 


144  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

tests,  and  to  insinuate  itself  through  the  glass  receiver 
and  take  up  its  residence  in  the  vacuum  of  an  air-pump. 

Q.  45.  Has  the  undulatory  theory  of  light  ever  been 
suspected  of  involving  anything  that  might  possibly  be 
injurious  to  the  eye? 

A.  Yes;  as  acoustical  science  continued  to  become 
more  cautious  than  correct,  some  of  the  prudent  opti- 
cians, like  Tyndall,  concluded  that  this  ether  ought  to 
be  softened  a  little  and  reduced  to  the  consistency  of 
something  like  "  jelly."  Ether  itself  was  regarded  as  ab- 
solutely harmless,  but  there  was  no  telling  what  dis- 
astrous results  might  follow  its  vibratory  dashes  into  the 
visual  organ  when  accompanied  with  whole  floods  of 
luminous  motion  at  the  rate  of  180,000  miles  per  second 
and  many  millions  of  "transverse"  movements  in  the 
same  short  period  of  time.* 

Q.  46.  But  suppose  that  science  should  yet  demon- 
strate and  prove  beyond  all  doubt  that  ether  is  all  and 
possesses  all  now  claimed  in  its  behalf,  could  the  theory 
then  be  held  in  the  light  of  true  science  as  tenable  and 
correct? 

A.     Not  at  all. 

Q.  47.     Why  not? 

*  But  now  comes  the  amusing  part  of  this  mathematical 
abandonment  of  the  corpuscular,  and  adoption  in  its  stead  of 
the  undulatory  theory  of  light.  After  they  had  determined,  by 
careful  figuring,  that  the  "  emission  theory"  was  no  good,  be- 
cause its  "  material  light-  particles  "  would  put  out  people's  eyes 
even  if  they  (not  the  eyes  but  the  particles)  weighed  only  the 
millionth  part  of  a  pound  each,  they  decided  to  adopt  a  newly- 
invented  "  ether"  like  a  "  jelly,"  "  with  the  properties  of  a  solid  " 
and  "  possessing  inertia,"  as  Tyndall  tells  us,  whose  material 
waves  would  dash  into  the  eye  with  the  velocity  of  light,  and 
at  the  rate  of  only  "  699,000,000,000,000  waves  in  a  second"! 
(Tyndall  on  Light,  p.  66.)  And  of  course,  anybody's  eyes  ought 
to  stand  that  much  "jelly"  !— Dr.  Hall,  in  Microcosm,  Vol.  II., 
p351. 


THE  NATURE  OF  LIGHT.  145 

A.  Because  it  does  not  admit  the  entitative  and  sub- 
stantial realm  of  light.  That  which  is  not  entitative  has 
nothing  more  than  a  phenomenal  existence,  and  that 
which  has  no  substance  has  no  positive  being.  It  follows, 
therefore,  that  that  which  is  built  upon  a  nonentity  or  a 
negation  must  be  equally  empty  of  contents,  and  sooner 
or  later  perish  from  the  earth,  or  only  continue  to  linger 
as  the  shadow  of  a  setting  sun. 

Q.  48.  But  might  not  this  ether  be  an  immaterial  sub- 
stance of  which,  as  the  Substantial  Philosophy  claims,  the 
universe  is  fuJl? 

A.  No.  To  assume  ether  to  be  an  immaterial  sub- 
stance would  be  to  abandon  the  undulatory  theory,  and 
at  once  to  do  away  with  the  necessity  of  material  waves 
of  any  kind  for  causing  the  sensation  of  light,  similiar  to 
the  supposed  air-waves  which  cause  the  sensation  of 
sound.  If  ether  were  assumed  to  be  an  immaterial  sub- 
stance, then  of  what  use  would  it  be  in  the  physical  sys- 
tem, since  light  itself,  as  an  immaterial  substance,  would 
answer  the  same  purpose  as  ether,  and  could  travel  from, 
the  sun  to  the  eye  either  asivaves  of  force,  pulses  of  force, 
or  steady  streams  of  force  just  as  the  economy  of  Nature 
might  require?  In  this  way  it  could  reach  the  eye  with- 
out any  of  the  complication  of  first  having  to  act  as  a  sub- 
stantial force  in  order  to  throw  the  material  ether  into 
waves,  and  then  necessarily  to  accompany  these  material 
waves  to  keep  up  their  mechanical  undulations  till  the 
eye  was  reached  and  the  retina  was  shaken.  Surely  the 
simple  and  harmonious  process  of  the  direct  action  of  the 
substantial  force  of  light  upon  the  eye,  radiating  from 
luminous  bodies  by  a  law  peculiar  to  such  form  of  force, 
as  here  presented,  appeals  to  our  reason  as  well  as  con- 
forms to  the  natural  fitness  of  things  as  observed  all 
around  us. 

Q.  49.  What  is  to  be  offered  in  the  place  of  the  undu- 
latory theory  of  light? 


146  THE     SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

A.     The  emission  theory  of  immaterial  substance. 

Q.  50.  In  what  will  this  theory,  when  fully  for- 
mulated, differ  from  Sir  Isaac  Newton's  corpuscular 
theory?* 

A.  Just  as  immaterial  substances  differ  from  material 
substances — as  force  differs  from  matter. 

Q.  51.  Then  the  Substantial  Philosophy  holds  that 
light  is  a  substance  and  a  force? 

A.  Precisely  so.  Substantialism  has  taken  this  posi- 
tion and  can  hold  it  until  all  the  analogies  of  Nature  are 
deprived  of  their  power  to  speak  the  truth,  and  their 
harmonious  utterances  proven  false  to  all  the  inductive 
processes  of  right  reason. 

Q.  52.  Does  the  Substantial  Philosophy  teach  that 
light  has  a  substantial  existence  independent  of  vibration 
or  motion? 

A.  Nothing  has  an  existence  separately  independent 
of  its  essential  attributes.  God  Himself  could  not  so 
exist.  Light  has  attributes  and  properties,  and  yet  its 
existence  is  its  own.  Vibration,  velocity  of  movement 

*  The  truth  is,  the  fundamental  idea  of  Substantialism,  which 
is  so  deeply  taking  root  in  the  minds  of  thoughtful  investigators, 
and  upon  which  the  present  corpuscular  doctrine  is  based,  never 
entered  the  mind  of  Newton.  That  fundamental  idea  consists 
in  the  general  classification  of  substance,  under  two  heads — 
material  and  immaterial,  corporeal  and  incorporeal,  ponderable 
and  imponderable;  and  that  one  of  these  classes  is  as  really  and 
truly  substantial  or  entitative  as  the  other.  Had  Sir  Isaac  New- 
ton caught  a  glimpse  of  this  dual  nature  of  the  substantial  uni- 
verse, he  would  have  avoided  the  inglorious  failure  of  his  theory 
of  "  material  light  particles"  by  never  having  adopted  such  a 
wretched  position  in  science,  and  all  the  waste  of  mathematics 
in  figuring  about  the  required  smallness  of  such  "  material  par- 
ticles" to  avoid  putting  out  one's  eyes,  would  have  been  saved 
by  him  and  his  friend  Huygens. — Dr.  Hall,  in  Microcosm,  Vol. 
II.,  p.  351. 


THE  NATURE  OF  LIGHT.  147 

and  refrangibility  may  be  properties  of  light,  but  cannot 
in  their  union  of  action  produce  their  proprietor. 

Q.  53.  But  would  there  be  anything  left  of  essence  or 
substance  if  all  its  attributes  or  properties  were  to  be 
separated  from  it? 

A.  It  is  impossible  to  separate  the  essential  attributes, 
properties  or  laws  of  being  from  the  essence  or  substance 
of  such  being.  Essence  involves  the  potentiality  of  its 
attributes;  and  such  potentiality  has  reality  even  before 
it  is  fully  actuatized.  Without  such  realism,  creation  is 
a  burlesque,  and  Compte  was  right.  Substantialism  in- 
volves a  proper  realism.  Universalia  in  re.  The  law  of 
diffusion  cannot  be  separated  from  odor,  and  yet  odor  is 
something  more  substantial  than  diffusion.  The  pulling 
effect  of  gravity  is  inseparable  from  gravity,  where  there 
is  anything  to  pull,  aod  yet  gravity  is  something  deeper 
in  the  ground  of  its  being.  Sound  may  have  intensity, 
pitch  and  timbre,  and  yet  sound  is  a  substance  back  of 
and  in  all  such  sonorous  peculiarities.  Heat  may  radiate, 
and  yet  it  requires  something  more  forcible  than  mere 
radiation  to  move  the  master-wheels  of  machinery  or  to 
melt  the  minerals  in  the  furnace.  So  with  light.  It 
may  be  vibratory  in  its  effects,  bend  from  a  straight  line 
by  virtue  of  its  refrangibility,  and  produce  colors  either 
by  virtue  of  its  rays  being  differently  refrangible  as  New- 
ton taught,  or  by  virtue  of  different  rates  of  pulsation  as 
now  held,  and  yet  no  one  but  a  consummate  quack  in  op- 
tical science  will  say  that  light  is  only  a  mode  of  vibra- 
tory motion,  divergency  from  a  straight  line  when  passing 
through  different  media,  or  the  color  in  which,  under 
certain  conditions,  this  substantial  force  takes  modified 
form. 

Q.  54.  Since  the  emission  theory  of  Newton  regarded 
light  as  consisting  of  material  corpuscles,  in  what  way 
did  he  account  for  the  passage  of  the  light  through  solid 
bodies,  such  ab  diamond,  crystal,  glass,  etc.  ? 


148  THE  SUBSTANTIAL    PHILOSOPHY. 

A.  He  had  no  possible  way  of  accounting  for  such 
fact  except  the  porosity  of  the  solid  body.  As  it  is  an 
undeniable  physical  law  that  no  two  material  substances 
can  occupy  the  same  place  at  the  same  time,  it  follows 
that  the  material  light- particles  of  Newton  were  com- 
pelled to  find  their  way  through  glass  by  penetrating  the 
pores  of  that  solid  material  and  thus  make  their  visible 
egress  on  the  other  side. 

Q.  55.  If  light  could  thus  pass  through  glass  by  pene- 
trating its  pores,  how  did  Newton  account  for  the  fact 
that  it  did  not  pass  through  opaque  bodies,  such  as  wood, 
sandstone,  burnt  bricks,  etc. — bodies  vastly  more  porous? 

A.  He  could  give  no  explanation  whatever  of  such 
fact  except  the  general  statement  that  it  was  the  nature 
of  the  material  molecules  and  their  crassitude  to  inter- 
fere with  the  particles  of  light  passing  through  them. 
One  would  have  thought  that  the  fact  of  the  free  passage 
of  light  through  distilled  and  boiled  water  and  through  the 
diamond  better  than  through  any  other  substances,  when 
these  bodies  are  the  most  imporous  of  all  known  sub- 
stances, would  have  driven  that  great  investigator  to  the 
Substantial  Philosophy  as  a  dernier  ressort,  and  to  the  un- 
avoidable recognition  of  its  grand  classification  of  all  the 
objective  entities  of  the  universe  into  material  and  imma- 
terial substances.  But  it  had  no  such  effect — that  revo- 
lutionary philosophical  idea  having  never  been  conceived 
till  within  the  present  decade  of  years,  thereby  making 
the  last  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century  'the  most 
memorable  for  profound  and  far-reaching  philosophical 
discovery  of  any  similar  period  in  the  world's  great  his- 
tory. 

Q.  56.  Do  not  these  same  difficulties  of  opacity, 
porosity,  etc.,  stand  in  the  way  of  ether  and  of  the  un- 
dulatory  theory  of  light? 

A.  Precisely  the  same.  Ether  being  claimed  as  a 
material  substance,  as  much  so  as  cwr  atmosphere,  only 


THE  NATURE  OF  LIGHT.  149 

more  attenuated,  could  no  more  pass  through  a  solid 
except  by  entering  its  pores,  than  could  Newton's  ma- 
terial light  corpuscles.  But  the  undulatory  theory 
teaches  that  this  supposed  ether,  which  has  the  proper- 
ties of  inertia,  weight,  rigidity,  elasticity,  compressibil- 
ity, etc.,  and  possessing  as  it  does  the  mechanical  nature 
of  a  jelly,  actually  circulates  freely  through  and  among 
the  molecules  of  all  bodies,  oscillating  to  and  fro  in  its 
wave- motions  as  do  the  particles  of  water  in  a  system  of 
water-waves.  As  all  solid  bodies,  according  to  Prof.  Tyn- 
dall  and  Sir  William  Thomson,  contain  this  ether  circu- 
lating among  their  molecules,  as  much  so  as  does  glass, 
it  becomes  the  mystery  of  mysteries,  according  to  that 
theory,  why  the  ether- waves  do  not  find  their  way 
through  a  sheet  of  iron  as  readily  as  through  a  sheet  of 
glass,  since  the  latter  is  so  much  less  porous,  and  thus 
make  iron  transparent. 

Q.  57.  Do  any  of  these  objections  and  difficulties  lie 
against  the  substantial  theory  of  light,  regarding  all  the 
forces  of  nature  as  immaterial  substances? 

A.  Not  one.  The  Substantial  Philosophy  explains 
every  mystery  of  nature  on  the  principle  of  the  correla- 
tion and  co-operation  of  the  substantial  forces.  The  sub- 
stantial force  of  cohesion  is  indisputably  the  governing 
force  in  all  material  bodies,  since  it  holds  them  together 
as  tangible  matter;  hence  it  may  be  inferred  that  no 
other  form  of  force  can  produce  the  slightest  effect  upon 
any  mass  of  matter  except  in  some  form  of  correlation  or 
co-operation  with  or  opposition  to  this  regnant  force  of 
cohesion.  If  one  body,  such  as  glass,  allows  light  to  pass 
through  it,  the  whole  mystery  is  explained  by  the  corre- 
lation and  co-operation  of  these  two  forces — light  and 
cohesion — and  the  manner  in  which  cohesive  force  has 
arranged  and  controls  the  particles  of  such  material  body. 
If  another  body  will  not  permit  the  passage  of  light,  it  is 
simply  because  the  ruling  force  of  cohesion  has  arranged 


150  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

the  particles  differently;  and  this  is  often  the  case  even 
when  the  two  bodies  are  constituted  of  the  very  same 
material  substance. 

Q.  58.  Is  there  any  direct  illustration  of  this  latter 
statement? 

A.  Many  such  illustrations.  Take  apiece  of  the  most 
transparent  crystal,  pulverize  it  to  flour,  and  then  con- 
dense it  into  a  solid  mass  under  a  powerful  hydraulic 
press.  Though  it  is  now  constituted  of  the  same  sub- 
stance as  before,  light  will  not  pass  through  it,  simply  be- 
cause cohesion  has  its  particles  now  arranged  in  a  differ- 
ent order,  being  coerced  into  such  new  arrangement  by 
the  mechanical  form  of  force  which  did  the  pulverizing 
and  compressing. 

Q.  59.  Can  cohesive  force  ever  restore  this  flour  of 
crystal  to  its  old  arrangement,  or  order  of  particles,  so 
that  light  can  co-operate  with  it  and  pass  freely  through 
such  material  substance? 

A.  Easily;  but  only  in  co-operation  with  another  form 
,of  substantial  but  immaterial  force  called  heat.  Let  this 
force  act  on  the  pressed  cake  of  crystal  flour  till  it  is 
melted  and  brought  to  a  white  heat,  and  it  helps  cohesion 
to  rearrange  the  particles  as  formerly,  and  thus  bring 
them  into  such  relation  to  each  other  that  the  substantial 
force  of  light  can  now  enter  and  pass  unobstructedly 
through  it  the  same  as  before. 

Q.  60.  Are  there  no  other  similar  illustrations  in  the 
action  of  this  governing  force  of  cohesion  in  its  correla- 
tion with  heat? 

A.  Yes;  the  whole  realm  of  physics  is  full  of  such  in- 
stances of  correlation  and  opposition  among  the  forces. 
An  entire  volume  of  such  illustrations  could  be  culled 
from  Dr.  HalFs  writings,  in  which  he  has  repeatedly 
shown  that  no  possible  solution  of  nature's  mysteries  can 
be  looked  for  except  on  this  principle  of  the  substantial 
correlation  of  the  various  forms  of  force  with  that  of  co- 


THE  NATURE  OF  LIGHT.  151 

hesive  attraction,  and  upon  which  general  law  this  author 
and  discoverer  has  declared  his  conviction  that  no  prob- 
lem in  physical  research  is  too  profound  for  this  talisman 
of  philosophy  to  unravel  and  make  clear. 

Q.  61.  What  are  a  few  of  these  cases  of  inexplicable 
mystery,  according  to  any  previous  theory  of  science, 
which  this  substantial  view  of  the  forces  and  their  corre- 
lation can  explain? 

A.  Take  the  melting  of  platinum,  which  only  occurs 
at  a  very  high  temperature.  Why?  Because,  as  already 
shown  in  Chapter  IV.,  the  cohesive  force,  which  arranges 
and  holds  its  particles  together,  refuses  to  co-operate  with 
heat,  or  perhaps  more  correctly,  is  able  in  that  fortified 
arrangement  of  particles  to  resist  the  inroads  of  heat  to  a 
vastly  greater  extent  than  in  its  intrenched  position 
among  the  particles  of  other  bodies,  such,  for  example,  as 
lead.  But  when  cohesion  in  lead  has  been  forced  to  sur- 
render to  heat  and  thus  allow  this  metal  to  become  liquid, 
a  piece  of  platinum,  which,  if  alone,  is  able  to  withstand 
incandescent  heat,  yet  if  immersed  in  this  molten  lead, 
will  instantly  succumb  to  the  combined  heat  and  cohesion 
there  in  action,  and  will  melt  at  less  than  one-fifth  the 
temperature  before  required.  In  like  mystery,  when 
three  metals,  such  as  tin,  lead  and  bismuth,  are  alloyed 
together  by  the  action  of  heat  in  overcoming  their  re- 
spective cohesive  arrangements,  and  thus  demoralizing, 
so  to  speak,  this  ruling  force,  such  alloyed  mass  will  now 
succumb  to  heat  and  yield  up  its  cohesive  resistance  at  less 
than  one-half  the  temperature  required  for  either  of  the 
metals  when  separate,  thus  showing  how  cohesive  force 
can  be  converted  into  heat,  or  how  it  can  be  made  to 
desert  its  post  and  retire  to  the  force-element  of  Nature. 
But  as  there  is  no  room  here  for  these  lengthy  discussions, 
the  student  is  referred  to  the  various  volumes  of  the  Micro- 
cosm and  the  Scientific  Arena,  of  which  Dr.  Hall  is  the 
editor. 


152  THE   SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

Q.  62.  As  light  is  a  substantial  force,  what  relation 
has  color  to  this  immaterial  entity? 

A.  The  same  relation  that  shape,  form,  general  ap- 
pearance, or  even  color  holds  to  a  material  body,  or  that 
any  other  property  of  matter  may  hold  to  such  body. 
Color  is  a  property  of  light,  as  timbre  is  a  property  of 
sound.  No  property,  quality,  or  peculiarity  of  any  sub- 
stantial thing  is  an  entity,  though  it  may  take  an  entity 
or  several  entities  or  substantial  things  to  constitute  a 
certain  property  of  a  substance;  as,  for  example,  it  takes 
the  combination  of  matter,  cohesion  and  gravity,  all  of 
which  are  substances,  to  constitute  the  property  of 
weight;  or  as  it  takes  numerous  overtones  of  varying  de- 
grees of  pitch,  in  combination  with  a  fundamental  sound, 
all  substantial  entities,  to  constitute  the  property  of 
timbre  or  quality  in  music.  In  like  manner  it  takes 
various  rays  of  light,  each  of  a  given  number  of  pulses 
per  second,  to  combine  into  a  mass  and  form  the  property 
of  white  light;  while  each  ray  thus  combined  is  itself  of 
a  certain  number  of  pulses,  and  hence  of  a  certain  color 
when  separated.  Take  out  or  separate  any  one  ray,  rep- 
resenting a  certain  rate  of  pulsation,  from  the  white 
combination  or  mass  of  rays,  and  the  quality  of  its  mass- 
color  is  changed  accordingly.  When  all  the  different 
rays  constituting  the  white  light  are  individually  sepa- 
rated, we  have  the  complete  colors  representing  the  dif- 
ferent pulsation  rates  of  the  spectrum,  just  as  the  differ- 
ent tones  of  a  mass-sound  maybe  separated  by  resonators, 
thus  determining  the  various  rates  of  vibration  which  go 
to  make  up  the  timbre  of  any  given  combination  of 
sounds. 

Thus,  in  a  word,  color  may  be  called  the  timbre  of 
light,  as  timbre  may  be  called  the  color  of  sound,  each 
constituting  the  property  of  the  substantial  force  of 
which  it  is  a  characteristic.  It  is  surely  as  reasonable  to 
assume  the  color  of  a  separate  ray  of  light  to  depend  on 


THE  NATURE  OF  LIGHT.  153 

its  special  rate  of  pulsation  penetrating  the  eye  or  solid 
crystal,  as  to  assume  it  to  depend  on  the  number  of 
ether-waves  which  enter  the  eye,  or  pass  through  the  prism 
in  a  given  time.  By  substituting  immaterial  pulses  of 
force  for  material  undulations,  the  action  of  the  prism 
in  dividing  a  ray  of  white  light  into  its  constituent  parts, 
becomes  a  simple  and  understandable  process.  There  is 
no  scientific  reason  for  doubting  that  a  stream  or  ray  of 
light  from  a  luminous  body,  as  originally  set  forth  in  the 
"  Problem  of  Human  Life,"  may  come  in  the  form  of  a 
rapid  succession  of  pulses  on  account  of  the  tremulous 
action  01  the  luminosity  which  liberates  such  light-force, 
something  similar  to  the  tremulous  action  of  the  sonorous 
body  which  sends  forth  or  liberates  sound  in  the  form  of 
pulses  or  jets.  In  this  way  the  greater  or  less  rate  of 
tremor  of  a  luminous  body  would  bring  a  greater  or  less 
number  of  these  light-pulsations  into  the  eye  in  a  second, 
producing  the  color  thus  represented,  a  fact  which  physi- 
cists have  vainly  tried  to  explain  by  waves  of  material 
ether.  Thus,  by  supposing  light-force  to  come  in  the 
form  of  a  given  rate  of  pulses  per  second,  fully  accounts 
for  color  in  light,  as  pitch  is  known  to  be  caused  by  the 
number  of  pulses  in  sound. 

Q.  63.  Has  Substantialism  fully  formulated  its  im- 
material theory  of  light  so  as  to  explain  satisfactorily  the 
interesting  phenomena  of  color? 

A.     It  has  not.*     No  one  branch  of  physical  science 

*  It  is  now  admitted  by  many  that  the  undulatory  theory  of 
light,  like  the  wave- theory  of  sound,  has  been  shattered  in  the 
central  pillar  of  its  support,  and  these  persons  of  negative  con- 
version wish  to  know  what  theory  will  be  substituted  in  its 
stead.  To  such,  we  say,  patience,  gentlemen,  patience,  mingled 
with  a  modicum  of  reason  and  common  fairness.  If  it  took  the 
world  200  years  to  build  the  undulatory  castle,  even  after  the 
other  had  been  bountifully  provided  free  of  charge,  is  it  too 
much  to  ask  the  full  limit  of  one  short  decade  of  years  to  build 


154  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

can  move  forward  to  perfection  in  advance  of  kindred 
branches  any  more  than  any  one  division,  of  an  army  can 
move  in  advance  of  all  other  divisions  that  tarry  behind 
to  play  the  poltroon  or  parley  with  the  common  enemy. 

Q.  64.  Are  these  different  divisions  now  moving  for- 
ward to  battle  and  to  victory? 

A.  They  are  indeed.  The  several  branches  of  phys- 
ical and  biological  science  are  moving  together  against 
the  stronghold  of  long-intrenched  fallacies.  The  general 
bugle-blast  of  Substantialism  has  been  heard  along  the 
line,  and  the  lovers  of  truth  are  gathering  in  scientific 
battle  array.  The  general  advance  has  begun.  The 
result  of  a  few  clashing  sabers  has  already  demonstrated 
that  the  Lord  of  Hosts  is  with  us.  Let  the  advancing 
legions  examine  well  the  ground  and  rifle-pits  over  which 
they  pass,  and  press  onward  until  they  find  themselves 
fairly  fortified  within  the  citadel,  above  whose  towers 
and  turrets  the  banners  of  truth  shall  wave  in  everlasting 
triumph. 

Q.  65.      Which  banner  shall  float  the  highest? 

A.  The  one  which  is  now  being  carried  through  the 
hottest  part  of  the  general  engagement,  and  upon  which 
is  inscribed  "  The  True  Nature  of  Sound." 

Q.  65.     What,  then,  is  sound? 

A.  This  question  is  answered  and  exhaustively  treated 
in  the  next  chapter. 

a  scientific  citadel  of  everlasting  truth  ?  But  whose  business 
is  it  to  supply  the  world  with  such  a  positively  correct  theory  ? 
Does  that  duty  rest  exclusively  upon  the  shoulders  of  Dr.  Hall, 
and  his  coadjutants  in  the  cause  of  true  science  ?  We  dispute 
the  reasonableness  of  any  such  assumption.  A  philanthropist 
may  fire  a  magazine  and  blow  a  pest-house  out  of  the  city.  Is 
he,  therefore,  bound  to  build  a  medical  college  in  its  stead  ? 


CHAPTEK  X. 

THE   NATUKE   AND   PHENOMENA   OF   SOUND.* 

The  Substantial  Tlieory  of  Acoustics. 

QUESTION  1.     What  is  sound? 

ANSWER.  Primarily,  sound  is  that  form  of  physical 
force  by  which  the  sense  of  hearing  in  men  and  animals 
is  addressed  and  affected. 

Q.  2.     Has  sound  any  other  meaning? 

A.  Yes;  by  a  trope  which  we  call  metonymy  the  effect 
is  often  put  for  the  cause,  and  thus  sound  signifies  the 
sensation  itself  in  our  consciousness,  which  we  call  hear- 
ing, and  by  which  we  distinguish  tones,  or  recognize 
their  various  peculiarities.! 

*  The  questions  and  answers  constituting  this  chapter  are  con- 
densed, substantially,  from  the  various  writings  of  Dr.  A.  Wil- 
ford  Hall  on  this  branch  of  physical  science,  as  found  rocorded 
in  his  "  Problem  of  Human  Life,"  the  five  volumes  of  the  Micro- 
cosm, and  the  Scientific  Arena,  of  which  he  is  editor.  This  will 
be  partly  shown  by  the  copious  foot-readings  accompanying  the 
text  as  the  discussion  proceeds. — J.  I.  S  wander. 

t SOUND,  LIGHT,  HEAT,  ODOR,  FLAVOR,  ETC. 

CLAYPOOL,  KY. 
Dr.  Wilford  Hall  : 

DEAR  SIR, — I  have  read  some  extracts  from  your  "  Problem 
of  Human  Life  "  on  the  subject  of  Sound,  but  do  not  know  that 
I  perfectly  understand  you;  hence,  I  would  be  pleased  to  have 
your  definition  of  sound — what  is  it,  and  what  relation  does  it 
sustain  to  aural  beings  ? 


156  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

Q.  3.     What  are  these  chief  peculiarities  of  sound? 

A.  They  are  intensity,  pitch,  duration  and  quality, 
the  latter  expressed  under  the  general  term  timbre. 

Q.  4.     What  is  meant  by  the  pitch  of  sound? 

A.  It  is  that  peculiarity  of  tone  by  which  we  recog- 
nize sounds  as  high  or  low,  sharp  or  grave. 

Q.  5.     What  is  the  chief  use  of  pitch  in  sound? 

A.  It  is  the  main  foundation  of  all  music,  and  the 
basis  of  harmony,  as  when  more  sounds  than  one  are  em- 
ployed at  the  same  time.  It  is  also  one  of  the  essentials 
of  ordinary  vocal  expression,  by  which  words  are  modu- 
lated in  conversation. 

Do  you  mean  that  it  has  any  real,  extrinsic  existence  ?  Or, 
in  other  words,  do  you  mean  to  teach  that  it  has  any  existence 
apart  from  that  particular  condition  of  matter  found  in  the 
structure  of  the  ear  ?  It  has  occurred  to  me  that  sound  is  only 
a  sensational  phenomenon,  and,  like  all  other  sensations,  depend- 
ent upon  nerve  matter;  but  if  I  perfectly  comprehend  you  I 
have  an  incorrect  idea  of  it — that  is,  if  you  are  correct.  Hoping 
that  you  will  take  pleasure  in  answering  my  question,  I  am 
very  respectfully  yours,  W.  S.  JONES,  M,  D. 

REPLY  BY  THE  EDITOtt. 

Sound,  as  well  as  any  other  of  the  sensation-producing  causes 
in  nature,  must  of  necessity  be  one  of  the  physical  forces,  and 
consequently  must  first  exist  outside  of  our  sensations  before  it 
can  act  upon  the  sense-nerves  to  produce  its  characteristic 
effect. 

Sound,  in  its  primary  sense  or  signification,  is  not  at  all  the 
sensation  in  our  consciousness,  as  Dr.  Jones  thinks,  which  we 
call  hearing,  and  is  only  used  in  that  sense  by  accommodation 
of  language,  or  by  metonymy  of  speech,  the  effect  being  put 
for  the  cause.  Still,  the  use  of  such  metaphors  in  our  language 
is  both  common  and  proper.  The  true  and  unfigurative  mean- 
ing of  scientific  terms,  however,  should  always  be  preferred  in 
our  philosophical  discussions  to  any  form  of  trope. 

Sound,  strictly  speaking,  is  that  force  in  nature  which  by 
entering  the  ear,  and  by  contact  with  the  auditory  nerve,  pro- 
duces in  our  consciousness  the  sensation  of  hearing.  Light 
is  that  force  in  nature  which  by  entering  the  eye,  and  by 


THE  NATURE  AND  PHENOMENA  OF  SOUND.  157 

Q.  6.     What  causes  pitch  in  sound? 

A.  As  sound  is  developed  by  the  vibratory  action  of 
some  sound-producing  body,  by  which  this  peculiar  form 
of  natural  force  is  generated  or  liberated  from  the  force- 
element  of  nature,  it  follows,  and  has  been  abundantly 
proved,  that  the  pitch  of  sound  depends  upon  the  num- 
ber of  such  vibrations  in  a  given  time  by  which  any  par- 
ticular sound  is  produced  and  conveyed  to  the  ear. 

Q.  7.  What  is  the  range  or  extreme  limits  of  such 
vibrational  rates,  for  producing  the  various  audible 
sounds  in  nature? 

A.     From  the  most  refined  experiments  it  has  been 

contact  with  the  optic  nerve,  produces  in  our  consciousness 
the  sensation  called  seeing  or  sight.  Heat  is  that  force  in 
nature  which  by  entering  our  tactile  nerves,  which  are  dis- 
tributed all  over  the  body,  produces  in  our  consciousness  the 
sensation  called  warmth,  and  metaphorically  also  called  heat. 
Odor  is  that  force  in  nature  which  by  entering  the  nose,  and 
coming  in  contact  with  the  olfactory  nerve,  produces  in  our 
consciousness  the  sensation  we  call  smell.  And  flavor  is  that 
force  in  nature  which  by  contact  with  the  palate  and  gustatory 
nerve  produces  in  our  consciousness  the  sensation  we  call 
taste. 

If  there  is  no  such  thing  as  sound  in  nature  outside  of  our 
ears  and  auditory  nerves,  then  there  surely  is  no  such  thing  as 
light  outside  of  our  eyes,  no  such  thing  as  heat  outside  of  our 
tactile  nerves,  no  such  thing  as  flavor  outside  of  our  gustatory 
membranes,  and  no  such  thing  as  odor  outside  of  our  noses. 
Are  the  old  theorists,  who  wish  to  confine  sound  to  our  sensa- 
tions in  order  to  avoid  Substantialisni.  prepared  for  the  applica- 
tion of  their  logic  to  light,  heat,  flavor  and  odor?  If  not,  let 
them  do  a  little  sober  reflecting  before  making  their  points. 
Let  us  now  put  the  matter  in  the  form  of  a  few  very  simple 
questions  and  see  how  it  will  hold  together. 

If  there  is  no  sound  as  a  physical  force  outside  the  ear,  is  it 
not  plain,  as  just  hinted,  that  there  is  no  light  as  a  physical 
force  outside  the  eye  ?  But  would  not  the  sun  shine  just  the 
same  if  all  eyes  were  put  out  ?  Suppose  all  sensuous  beings 
should  shut  their  eyes  at  one  time;  would  that  extinguish  the 


158  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

determined,  that  sounds  can  be  heard  by  the  best  ears 
from  16  up  to  about  16,000  vibrations  in  a  second. 
(Some  authors  place  this  upper  limit  much  higher,  but  it 
is  manifestly  a  mistake.)  The  average  range  of  tone, 
however,  in  orchestral  music  is  believed  to  extend  from 
about  30  to  8000  vibrations  per  second. 

Q.  8.  Do  any  tones  exceed  the  extreme  limits  of  vi- 
bration here  given  for  the  capacity  of  human  ears? 

A.  It  may  be  fairly  inferred  from  various  natural 
analogies,  that  sound-force  is  really  generated  both  by 
lower  and  higher  rates  of  vibration  than  those  named  as 
producing  audible  sound,  but  that  its  form,  in  such 
cases,  exceeds  the  capacity  of  our  sensations. 

light  of  the  sun  ?  If  all  light  (like  sound  is  claimed  to  be)  is  in 
our  sensations,  then  what  produces  the  chemical  effect  on  a 
metallic  plate,  changing  it  into  what  we  call  a  daguerreotype  ? 
Has  that  inert,  inanimate  piece  of  metal  an  optic  nerve? 
Would  not  the  same  chemical  effect  have  taken  place  by  the 
action  of  the  light  under  the  same  conditions,  if  there  were  no 
eyes  in  existence?  Then  again:  If  heat  (like  sound  is  supposed 
to  be)  is  only  in  our  tactile  sensations,  and  not  a  physical,  sub- 
stantial force  outside  of  them,  how  does  it  burn  down  a  build- 
ing ?  Does  a  frame  house  possess  tactile  nerves  and  a  conscious 
sensation  ? 

Then,  coming  right  home  to  the  question  in  hand,  if  sound  is 
only  in  our  sensations,  and  not  a  real,  substantial  force  in 
nature  outside  of  our  conscious  being,  what  is  it  that  sets  a 
stretched  string  into  sympathetic  vibration  ?  Has  a  steel  wire 
got  ears  ?  Does  a  tensioned  chord  possess  an  auditory  nerve  and 
animal  consciousness  ?  Would  not  that  stretched  wire  be  thrown 
into  action  by  sympathy  all  the  same,  under  the  same  circum- 
stances, if  there  were  not  an  ear  in  existence  ?  If  so,  what  could 
do  it  but  the  external,  physical  force  called  sound  ?  And  how 
could  sound  do  it,  if  sound  exists  only  in  conscious  sensation  ? 

No,  Doctor,  we  may  rest  assured  that  the  lightnings  would 
flash,  and  the  thunders  would  roar,  and  the  windows  would 
rattle  all  the  same  if  there  were  not  an  eye  or  an  ear  in  the 
universe  to  take  cognizance  of  them;  and  that  the  wild  rose 
would  continue  to  "  blush  unseen  and  waste  its  fragrance  on 


THE  NATURE  AND  PHENOMENA  OF  SOUND.  159 

Q.  9.  From  what  natural  analogies  may  this  be  in- 
ferred ? 

A.  From  all  the  other  sensation-producing  causes. 
Heat,  for  example,  may  be  so  trifling  that  we  cannot  feel 
its  warmth.,  while  very  refined  instruments,  such  as  the 
most  sensitive  galvanometers,  will  plainly  detect  and  show 
its  presence.  A  light  may  be  so  faint  as  to  be  wholly 
unrecognizable  by  our  sensations,  yet  a  cat  could  so 
gather  and  utilize  the  rays,  as  to  see  and  distinguish  ob- 
jects. Odor  may  be  entirely  unrecognizable  by  our  sense 
of  smell,  and  yet  be  intensely  recognizable  by  certain 
species  of  hound;*  etc.,  etc.  So,  in  like  manner,  some 

*  A  hound  of  a  certain  breed,  with  highly-sensitive  olfactories, 
will  follow  the  direction  of  a  fox  over  hill  and  dale,  through  for- 

the  desert  air "  all  the  same  if  there  was  not  one  olfactory 
nerve  on  this  earth  to  recognize  it. 

"We  feel  sure,  judging  by  the  candid  spirit  of  Dr.  Jones'  letter 
of  inquiry,  that  he  is  honestly  desirous  of  information  concern- 
ing the  teaching  of  the  new  philosophy.  And  we  believe  there 
are  hundreds  of  others  in  the  same  state  of  mental  suspense. 
We  have,  therefore,  taken  particular  pains  to  make  the  answer 
clear. 

It  is  impossible,  however,  to  elucidate  everything  involved  in 
the  great  philosophy  of  Substantialism  in  a  few  paragraphs,  or 
even  in  a  few  numbers  of  the  Arena,  and  which  has  taken  us 
more  than  a  decade  of  years  to  elaborate.  Had  Dr.  Jones,  and 
many  others  who  make  similar  inquiries,  read  our  five  volumes 
of  the  Microcosm,  beginning  with  the  "  Problem  of  Human 
Life,"  they  would  have  found  all  such  inquiries  fully  answered 
in  advance.  We  give  due  notice  to  all  new  readers  of  the 
Arena  that  they  can,  at  this  late  date,  scarcely  ask  a  question 
relating  to  the  elementary  laws  and  principles  involved  in 
Substantialism,  that  has  not  been  discussed  and  answered  in 
some  portion  of  our  previous  writings.  Still,  this  is  not  to  fore- 
stall inquiries.  We  desire  to  receive  candid  questions  on  ail 
proper  subjects,  and  we  will  endeavor  to  answer  all  such  as 
have  an  important  bearing  on  the  current  discussions  in  the 
Arena. — From  the  Scientific  Arena,  Vol.  I.,  p.  73. 


160  THE  SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

animals,  such  as  hares,  will  hear  sounds  from  a  distance 
entirely  too  faint  for  human  beings  to  recognize.  It  has 
also  been  proved  by  the  microphone,  that  even  small  in- 
sects have  conversational  sounds  by  which  they  commu- 
nicate one  with  another,  but  which  are  far  too  delicate 
for  our  unaided  ears;  just  as  animalcules  have  the  visual 
power  to  see  and  pursue  each  other,  even  when  they  are 
beyond  the  reach  of  our  natural  vision,  and  in  fact  of 
the  most  powerful  microscopes. 

Q.  10.     What  is  signified  by  the  intensity  of  sound? 

A.  Inside  of  our  sensations  it  signifies  loudness,  but 
externally  or  objectively,  intensity  signifies  the  strength 
or  quantity  of  this  force  generated,  and  is  that  attribute 

est  and  jungle,  hours  after  it  has  passed,  and  even  when  it  has 
reached  a  score  of  miles  ahead.  Yet  the  hound  does  not  depend 
on  touching  the  tracks  of  the  fox  with  his  nose,  or  even  of  fol- 
lowing its  exact  path;  but,  as  observed  by  the  writer  (having 
seen  a  fox  pass  hours  before,  and  noting  the  exact  path  taken 
by  its  feet),  will  frequently  vary  rods  from  the  true  path,  yet, 
keeping  on  in  the  general  direction,  will  pursue  his  game  with 
unerring  certainty. 

So  defined  and  substantial  are  the  odorous  particles  emanating 
from  the  footfalls  of  the  fox,  that  a  dog,  on  striking  a  trail 
hours  old,  will  almost  instantly  decide,  by  the  arrangement  of 
the  atoms  in  the  air,  the  direction  it  has  taken;  but,  if  moment- 
arily mistaking  the  back-track,  the  difference,  probably,  in  the 
intensity  of  the  surcharged  air  warns  him  of  his  error,  and  leads 
him  to  reverse  his  course. 

Before  stopping  to  quibble  about  the  impossibility  of  sound 
being  substantial  emanations  from  its  inconceivable  tenuity,  let 
us  try  to  grasp  the  marvelous  lesson  taught  by  this  fox  and 
hound.  Though  the  wind  may  blow  across  the  trail,  carrying 
off  for  hours  the  odorous  clouds  which  have  risen  from  the  in- 
stantaneous impress  of  the  feet  upon  the  earth,  filling  thus,  per- 
haps, vast  areas  along  the  trail  with  those  magical  atoms  of  per- 
fume, exceeding,  possibly,  in  extent  many  times  the  four  square 
miles  of  air  surcharged  by  the  locust,  yet  sufficient  odor  re- 
mains, extending  for  rods  on  both  sides  of  the  trail,  to  enable 
the  hound  to  pursue  his  distant  game  with  infallible  precision, 


THE  NATURE  AND  PHENOMENA  OF  SOUND.  161 

of  sound  by  which  its  range  of   observable  distance  is 
caused  and  determined. 

Q.  11.  In  what  does  the  intensity  of  sound,  external 
to  our  senses,  chiefly  consist? 

A.  In  the  amount  or  quantity  of  this  force  generated 
or  liberated  from  the  force-element  of  Nature,  by  the 
various  vibratory  processes  ordained  to  that  end,  just  as 
any  other  form  of  force,  magnetism  for  example,  may 
exist  with  greater  or  less  intensity. 

Q.  12.  On  what  law  or  principle  does  this  sound-force 
travel  when  thus  generated  or  liberated  from  the  force- 
element  of  Nature? 

A.     By  the  same  law  or  analogous  principle  on  which 

I  now  ask  the  puzzled  reader,  who  fails  to  see  how  the  locust 
can  fill  an  area  two  miles  square  with  sonorous  substance  and 
not  appreciably  reduce  its  weight,  to  tell  me,  approximately, 
how  much  reynard  has  reduced  his  feet  in  size  and  weight  by 
the  clouds  of  odor  diffused  along  his  track  for  a  hundred  miles? 
Though  the  feet  may  have  deteriorated  by  the  roughness  of  the 
journey  and  their  two  hundred  thousand  impacts  upon  the  hard 
earth,  yet  I  venture  the  suggestion  that  the  cubic  miles  of  odor- 
ous substance  which  encompassed  the  trail  and  guided  the 
hound,  did  not  diminish  the  weight  of  either  f oot  an  a] >preciable 
fraction  of  a  grain.  Yet  those  miles  of  odor-surcharged  atmos- 
phere were  filled  with  substantial  emissions,  as  all  science  unites 
in  assuring  us,  though  not  so  tenuous,  probably,  as  sonorous  sub- 
stance, yet  sufficiently  near  it  to  cause  the  imagination  to  retire 
discomfited  and  confounded. 

The  reader  thus  has  a  rational  answer  to  his  question  in  this 
somewhat  analogous  substance  of  odor,  showing  that  it  is  not  at 
all  among  the  impossibilities,  nor  is  it  even  improbable,  that  the 
locust  should  fill  such  an  area  with  sonorous  substance,  from 
this  analogue  in  the  fox's  feet — whilst  not  the  shadow  of  an  an- 
swer can  be  offered  by  the  advocates  of  the  wave-theory  of  sound 
for  the  reasonableness  of  corporeal  results  equal  to  the  mechan- 
ical energy  of  a  million  locomotives  ascribed  to  the  physical 
strength  of  a  single  insect. — Dr.  Hall,  in  "Problem  of  Human 
Life,"  p.  135. 


162  THE  SUBSTANTIAL    PHILOSOPHY. 

any  other  force  of  Nature  travels,  as,  for  example,  elec- 
tricity, magnetism,  light,  heat,  gravity,  etc.  Sound 
travels  by  a  law  of  conduction  or  radiation  suited  to  that 
peculiar  form  of  force,  and  which  law  (at  present  un- 
known to  man)  is  adapted  by  the  all- wise  Author  of  nat- 
ure to  the  various  bodies  through  which  sound  passes  at 
varying  rates  of  velocity,  according  as  their  material  par- 
ticles are  variously  arranged  and  held  together  by  the 
force  of  cohesive  attraction.  This  involves  the  law  first 
set  forth  in  the  Substantial  Philosophy,  and  alluded  to  in 
one  of  the  foregoing  chapters  of  this  book,  that  no  form 
of  physical  force,  aside  from  cohesion,  acts  directly  upon 
matter,  but  that  all  other  forms  of  force  affect  matter 
alone  by  their  co-operation  with,  or  opposition  to  cohes- 
ive force. 

Q.  13.  What  has  the  vibratory  tremor  of  the  con- 
ducting body,  as,  for  example,  air,  to  do  with  sound  as  a 
force  ? 

A.  Any  tremor  or  vibration  observed  in  air  or  other 
sound-conducting  medium  constitutes  no  part  of  sound- 
force  itself,  but  is  either  the  effect  of  such  force  in 
its  action  upon  material  objects,  or  is  incidental  to  the 
vibratory  process  or  operation  by  which  sound-force  is 
generated  and  liberated. 

Q.  14.  Are  there  any  proofs  from  natural  analogy  that 
this  is  the  correct  view? 

A.  Yes;  especially  as  seen  in  the  case  of  electricity 
when  generated  by  the  whirling  motion  of  the  dynamo- 
machine.  Not  only  will  this  generating  process  produce 
an  incidental  tremor  of  the  air,  of  the  conducting  wire, 
and  even  of  the  whole  building  in  which  the  work  is  car- 
ried on,  but  the  electric  force  itself,  thus  conducted 
along  the  wire,  will  cause  additional  motion  in  an  electric 
engine  miles  away  from  the  dynamo-machine.  As  well 
call  this  incidental  tremor  of  the  wire  and  of  the  build- 
ing, or  this  running  of  the  distant  engine,  the  electricity 


THE  NATURE  AND  PHENOMENA  OB    SOUND.  163 

itself,  as  to  call  the  incidental  vibration  of  the  air,  or  the 
sympathetic  vibration  of  another  instrument  near  a 
tuning-fork,  the  sound-force  itself.  Both  classes  of 
phenomena  are  equally  incidental  to,  or  effects  of,  these 
different  forms  of  force,  and  are  no  more  the  force 
itself,  than  is  the  tremor  of  the  flint  and  steel,  when 
struck,  the  spark  or  light  -force  thus  generated  and  sent 
forth.*  Thus  there  is  not  only  the  incidental  motion  of 

*  But  the  Standard  critic  seems  really  to  have  struck  a  happy 
thought,  and  supposes  he  has  effectually  caught  the  substantial 
philosopher  napping  at  last.  He  seems  to  think  he  has  him  as 
safely  secured  in  the  meshes  of  his  logical  network  as  any  octo- 
pus ever  had  a  helpless  porgee  with  his  formidable  antennae 
wound  about  it.  He  has  discovered  that  if  sound  is  an  entity, 
according  to  Substantialism,  and  if  the  locust  generates  these 
substantial  pulses  by  its  stridulation,  then  the  insect  actually 
creates  something  out  of  nothing,  by  scraping  its  legs  across  the 
nervures  of  its  wings!  This  is  plain,  he  thinks,  because  no  sound 
was  there  till  the  scraping  began.  Or,  if  this  substantial  entity 
is  not  created  out  of  nothing,  then  it  must  be  manufactured  out 
of  the  insect's  organism,  so  that  the  poor  little  thing  ought  soon 
to  use  itself  up  in  its  own  substantial  noise!  And  still  worse, 
what  becomes  of  this  sound-substance  when  it  ceases  to  be  audi- 
ble ?  Is  it  annihilated?  etc.,  etc.  I  have  made  the  case  even 
stronger  than  did  the  critic,  to  give  the  Substantial  Philosophy 
a  rare  opportunity  to  show  its  powers  of  solution  and  explana- 
tion. And  here  its  founder  comes  to  the  task,  by  the  remark: 
"  How  easy  it  is  for  even  great  men  to  be  mistaken,  especially 
when  attempting  to  criticise  something  they  do  not  understand 
or  have  not  thoroughly  investigated!"  a  very  sensible  remark, 
by  the  way.  He  then  proceeds  substantially  thus:  According 
to  Substantialism,  the  incorporeal  force-element  in  Nature,  from 
which  sensuous  sound  is  generated  by  whatever  sound-producing 
instruments,  exists  in  all  matter  and  space,  not  as  audible  sound, 
of  course,  but  as  its  elemental  basis,  and  which  only  requires  the 
vibratory  and  atomic  process  ordained  in  the  economy  of  Nature 
for  transforming  this  force  element  and  thus  calling  it  forth  in 
that  definite  form  of  force  which  we  recognize  as  sound.  This 
same  universal  but  indefinite  force-principle,  by  the  process  of 
the  battery  or  dynamo-machine,  leaps  forth  in  the  definite  form 


164  THE     SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

adjacent  bodies,  as  the  effort  of  the  vibrating  instrument 
which  generates  sound,  but  sound-force  itself  will  also 
produce  vibrations  in  bodies  against  which  it  strikes,  as 
for  example,  the  diaphragms  of  phonographs,  telephones, 
etc.,  in  close  proximity  to  sounding  instruments. 

Q.  15.  As  sound-force  is  not  the  incidental  tremor  of 
the  air  or  of  other  conducting  medium,  is  the  vibration 
of  the  fork  or  of  the  string  itself,  by  which  the  sound  is 
produced,  any  part  of  the  sound-force  thus  generated? 

A.  No;  this  harmonic  or  pendulous  motion,  or  in 
other  words  this  synchronous  swing  of  the  fork  or  other 
sounding  instrument,  is  no  more  identical  with  the 

of  electricity,  with  its  own  peculiar  properties,  and  which  has  no 
existence  in  that  form  in  the  air  or  battery  until  so  transformed 
and  evolved  from  this  force- reservoir  of  Nature.  Clouds  also  act 
as  a  battery  and  produce  a  similar  transformation.  The  same 
universal  element  of  force,  by  the  peculiar  but  mysterious  rela- 
tions of  the  atoms  of  the  steel  magnet,  pour  out  transformed 
into  the  shape  of  magnetic  rays  of  real  in  corporeal  substance  that 
will  lift  a  bar  of  iron  at  a  distance  even  through  impervious 
glass.  So  also  with  the  substantial  light-rays,  which  are  but 
another  transformation  from  the  same  fountain  or  universal  ele- 
ment of  force,  evolved  to  the  sensible  form  of  light  by  various 
processes  ordained  in  Nature  to  that  end.  But  it  by  no  means 
follows  that  electricity  is  created  out  of  nothing  or  returns  back 
to  nothing  when  its  substantial  manifestations  cease;  nor  is  it 
created  out  of  the  substance  of  the  electro -magnets  in  the  dy- 
namo-machine which  ii'ill  last  indefinitely  ii'ithout  the  slightest 
wear  or  deterioration  of  their  material  substance.  So  a  locust, 
while  thus  generating  substantial  sound-pulses,  not  out  of  noth- 
ing, but  evolving  them  from  this  same  universal,  substantial 
fountain  or  force-element,  uses  not  a  particle  of  its  physical  or- 
ganism as  a  constituent  of  such  sonorous  form  of  force.  The 
fire-fly,  as  the  editor  shows  in  the  March  Microcosm  in  reply  to 
Prof.  Goodenow,  though  but  a  hundredth  part  the  size  of  the 
locust,  can  be  seen  half  a  mile  of  a  dark  night,  and,  therefore, 
must  fill  that  much  space  in  all  directions  with  its  substantial 
but  incorporeal  light-corpuscles  which  it  generates  at  each  flash 
from  its  thorax,  not  out  of  nothing,  but  out  of  that  same  force 


THE  NATURE  AND  PHENOMENA  OF  SOUND.  165 

sound-force  thus  liberated  and  sent  off  through  the  air 
1120  feet  a  second,  than  is  the  rotary  motion  of  the 
dynamo-magnets  identical  with  the  electric  force  sent  off 
through  the  wire  at  a  velocity  of  thousands  of  miles  a 
second.  The  force  and  the  motions  in  both  cases  (both 
causal  and  incidental)  are  entirely  distinct  from  each 
other.  But  as  the  incidental  tremor  of  a  building, 
caused  by  the  running  of  a  dynamo-machine,  may  also 
be  made  to  generate  other  electricity,  when  properly 
utilized,  so  the  incidental  and  synchronous  tremor  of  a 
conducting  medium  may  itself  also  cause  additional 
sound.  This  is  illustrated *• by  the  sound  generated  at 
the  distant  end  of  a  mechanical  telephone  wire.  The 

element  which  pervades  all  Nature  and  supplies  each  force, 
when  definitely  evolved,  with  properties  peculiar  to  itself.  The 
physical  substance  of  this  diminutive  insect  has  nothing  to  do 
with  constituting  that  form  of  substantial  force  called  light, 
since,  after  thus  filling  hundreds  of  cubic  miles  night  after  night 
with  actual  substance,  it  has  not  exhausted  its  corporeal  struct- 
ure in  the  least!  But  what  becomes  of  the  light,  the  sound,  the 
electricity,  the  magnetism,  or  any  other  peculiar  form  of  force 
thus  generated,  after  serving  the  purpose  thus  designed  in  Nat- 
ure, or  after  ceasing  to  manifest  itself  ?  It  falls  back  from  its 
definite  form  into  the  same  indefinite  force-element  or  reservoir 
from  which  it  was  evolved  by  the  process  appointed  in  Nature; 
and  thus  only  can  the  law  of  the  conservation  of  the  forces  be  true. 
Tims  also,  as  the  founder  of  this  Substantial  Philosophy  teaches 
in  his  "  Problem  of  Human  Life,''  the  vital  and  mental  force  of 
the  lower  animals  at  death  falls  back  into  the  universal  fountain 
of  life  and  mentality  from  which  all  substantial  life  and  mind 
must  have  originally  come,  and  which  reaches  back  to  God  him- 
self. He  insists  that  no  scientist  dares  to  deny  him  the  right 
thus  to  postulate  such  a  universal  force-element  or  fountain 
from  which  all  forms  of  manifested  force  with  all  their  peculi- 
arities come,  since  this  Philosophy  solves  so  many  otherwise  ab- 
solutely inexplicable  problems  in  science,  while  contradicting 
nothing  that  we  know  surely  in  any  branch  of  natural  philos- 
oph}7.  It  would  be  with  an  ill  grace  for  scholasticism  to  deny 
this  right  to  assume  a  universal  force-element  which  rationally 


166  THE  SUBSTANTIAL    PHILOSOPHY. 

sound- force  of  the  voice,  caused  by  the  vibration  of  the 
vocal  organs,  may  shake  the  intervening  air  and  set  the 
transmitting  diaphragm  of  the  telephone  into  motion; 
this  communicates  the  tremor  to  the  conducting  wire, 
which  continues  it  on  to  the  receiving  diaphragm,  which 
takes  up  and  communicates  these  various  links  of  inci- 
dental tremors  to  the  air,  thus  conducting  the  sound 
pulses  to  the  ear,  all  of  which  vibratory  links  conspire  to 
keep  up  reproducing  as  well  as  conducting  the  original 
sound.  Hence,  let  the  vibration  of  such  a  mechanical 
telephone  wire  be  stopped  off  any  where  along  the  line 
by  a  rigid  vise,  and  no  audible  sound  will  be  communi- 

solves  all  the  mysterious  phenomena  of  science  and  which  have 
so  long  puzzled  the  schools,  when  the  same  scholasticism  as- 
sumes an  all-pervading  and  material  luminiferous  ether  for  the 
sole  purpose  of  getting  a  substance  out  of  which  to  manufacture 
light- waves  and  thus  to  make  light  harmonize  with  an  erroneous 
theory  of  sound-waves,  and  all,  too,  without  any  rational  neces- 
sity either  for  such  assumption  or  such  a  substance. 

But  in  conclusion,  take  one  more  case  which  the  author  of  the 
new  theory  cites  as  an  illustration  of  the  importance  of  Substan- 
tialism  in  giving  a  rational  solution  of  Nature's  mysterious  prob- 
lems. The  flint  and  steel  are  perfectly  dark,  cold,  and  silent 
bodies.  Neither  light,  heat,  nor  sound  addresses  our  senses  as 
we  look  at  them,  feel  of  them,  or  hold  them  to  our  ears.  But 
bring  them  together  in  suitable  substantial  contact  and  forth- 
with there  leap  away  from  them  a  ray  of  substantial  light,  a 
flash  of  substantial  heat ,  and  a  hiss  of  substantial  sound  !  Where 
were  these  three  substances,  or  forces,  concealed  before  this 
contact?  Had  the}r  110  existence  in  any  form,  and  were  the', 
therefore,  created  out  of  nothing?  By  no  manner  of  means. 
Plainly,  as  Substantialism  answers,  they  were  all  previously 
locked  up,  in  essence  at  least,  in  the  all- pervading  force-foun- 
tain of  which  we  have  been  speaking,  and  they  only  required 
this  substantial  contact  of  the  two  material  bodies  to  enable  them 
to  come  forth  in  the  three  manifested  forms  of  definite  and  sub- 
stantial force  as  observed.  Such  are  a  few  of  the  beauties  of 
the  Substantial  Philosophy  now  appealing  to  the  people  through 
the  columns  of  the  Microcosm.— Eld.  Thos.  Munnell,  in  the  Mi- 
crocosm, Vol.  III.,  p.  307. 


OF 


V 

THE  NATURE  AND  PHENOMENA  OF  SOUND.  167 

cated  to  the  receiving  diaphragm,  thus  showing  how  es- 
sential is  vibration  to  the  usual  methods  of  generating 
sonorous  force. 

Q.  16.  But  does  not  this  view  involve  the  doctrine  of 
sound  as  a  mode  of  motion? 

A.  No;  sound  is  one  of  the  forms  of  physical /orce, 
and  as  such,  is  an  objective  entity  or  an  immaterial  sub- 
stance. As  well  call  electricity  a  mode  of  motion  be- 
cause this  form  of  force  moves  along  a  wire,  and  is  usually 
generated  by  a  motion  which  shakes  the  wire  as  its  con- 
ducting medium,  also  shaking  the  air  and  the  building 
where  the  machinery  runs.  It  requires  close  thinking, 
but  it  is  scientifically  essential  to  keep  up  this  distinction 
between  any  form  of  force  liberated  and  the  mechanical 
process  or  operation  which  liberates  it.  Both  sound  and 
electricity  are  usually  generated  by  modes  or  methods  of 
mechanical  motion,  but  when  generated  they  are  anal- 
ogous forms  of  force-energy,  and  are  thus  real  substantial 
entities. 

Q.  17.     Is  all  force  necessarily  substantial? 

A.  Yes.  Nothing  in  Nature  can  directly  cause  a  phe- 
nomenon, or  produce  a  positive  effect  upon  our  sensaous 
observation,  unless  it  is  a  substantial  entity  or  objective 
thing.  Every  force  of  Nature,  therefore,  must  be  a  sub- 
stantial entity,  as  it  is  the  direct  or  immediate  cause  of 
sensation,  or  of  observed  phenomena.* 

*  Having  thus  reached  this  field  of  research,  what  do  we  dis- 
cover ?  Is  it  possible  in  reason  that  in  stepping  over  this  bound- 
ary-line of  material  existences,  we  have  left  all  real  substances 
behind  us  when  we  have  parted  company  with  odor  ?  It  surely 
does  not  seem  so  to  us,  or  that  such  a  view  can  be  rational  to  a 
philosophical  investigator.  Substantialism  teaches,  on  the  con- 
trary, that  we  have  only  entered  the  hitherto  unexplored  and 
even  almost  unrecognized  domain  of  the  absolute  physical,  vital, 
mental,  and  spiritual  entities  which,  though  immaterial,  under- 
lie, manipulate,  and  control  all  material  bodies,  and  from  which 


168  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

Q.  18.  Does  not  this  make  out  motion  itself  to  be  an 
entity  or  substantial  thing,  since  it  generates  or  produces 
force — as,  for  example,  in  the  case  of  sound  and  electric- 
ity? 

A.  Not  in  any  strict  sense.  The  exact  character  or 
true  nature  of  what  is  meant  by  motion  is  somewhat  dif- 
ficult to  grasp  and  define,  unless  by  the  most  careful 
mental  effort.  Strictly  speaking,  motion  is  nothing  but 
space,  or  position  in  space  changing.  As  pure  space  is 
nothing,  mere  position  in  space,  whether  stationary  ex- 
changing, is  also  nothing.  The  substance  which  occu- 
pies space,  and  which  is  the  subject  of  motion  or  change 
of  position,  is,  of  course,  an  entity,  as  is  also  that  which 

domain,  as  their  source,  all  material  worlds  have  their  origin, 
and  from  whose  delegated  power  all  visible  and  sensible  mani- 
festations are  now  observed  in  sensuous  phenomena.  These 
real  entities,  from  the  most  refined  spiritual  and  mental  sub- 
stance in  Nature  downward  through  the  lower  mental  powers 
and  instincts  and  the  coarser  vital  substances  of  the  animal  and 
vegetable  kingdoms,  still  downward  through  the  physical  but 
substantial  forces  of  gravitation,  electricity,  light,  heat,  sound, 
magnetism,  etc.,  are  all  around  us  in  space  as  real  entitative  ex- 
istences, in  ten  thousand  forms  and  operations,  as  Substantialism 
tells  us,  had  we  but  the  higher  mental  vision  to  behold  them 
And  what  is  peculiar  of  incorporeal  substances,  unlike  material 
bodies,  they  do  not  interfere  with  each  other  in  space,  but  a 
thousand  of  such  entitative  existences  can  occupy  exactly  the 
same  corporeal  place  at  the  same  time.  If  the  physical  forces  be 
really  immaterial  substances,  as  Substantialism  insists,  it  is  plain 
that  gravity  not  only  occupies  the  minutest  molecules  of  mate- 
rial bodies,  but  that  light,  heat,  sound,  magnetism,  and  elec- 
tricity can  all  occupy  the  same  material  atoms  at  the  same  in- 
stant of  time  without  displacing  or  in  any  way  interfering  with 
gravity,  or  one  with  another. 

Thus  the  mode-of-motion  doctrine  in  the  case  of  magnetism 
falls  to  the  ground,  as  it  totally  fails  to  account  for  the  action  of 
a  magnet  on  a  distant  body,  leaving  magnetic  force,  as  an  un- 
deniable incorporeal  substance,  in  peaceable  possession  of  the 
field.  We  challenge  the  scientific  world  to  make  any  reply  to 


THE  NATURE  AND  PHENOMENA   OF  SOUND.  169 

causes  such  motion  or  change  of  position,  which  is  force 
of  some  kind.  But  motion,  per  se,  had  no  existence 
before  the  body  began  to  change  position,  and  it  lias  no 
existence  after  the  body  comes  to  rest,  which  cannot  be 
said  either  of  the  body  itself  or  of  the  force  or  energy 
which  caused  it  to  move,  both  of  which,  being  real  ob- 
jective existences,  cannot  be  annihilated  or  cease  to 
exist,  but  must  persist  in  some  form.  Superficially, 
therefore,  we  may  say  that  sound  is  produced  by  the  mo- 
tion of  the  tuning-fork;  but,  scientifically  speaking, 
sound  is  produced  by  the  substantial  mechanical  force  or 
energy  which  overcomes  the  inertia  of  the  fork  and  puts 
it  into  motion.  As  motion  is  a  nonentity,  it  therefore, 

this  argument  for  the  absolute  existence  of  immaterial  substance 
— an  argument  which  alone  annihilates  the  mode-of -motion  doc- 
trine as  applied  to  other  natural  forces,  leaving  them  all  entities, 
just  as  required  by  the  Substantial  Philosophy.  For,  plainly,  if 
magnetism  is  thus  proved  to  be  a  real  substance,  by  the  utter  in- 
adequacy of  any  mere  motion  of  material  substance  to  explain 
the  facts,  then  gravity  must  follow  as  a  real,  immaterial  sub- 
stance, by  applying  the  very  same  line  of  reasoning  and  illustra- 
tion; and  if  these  two  forces  of  Nature  are  thus  indubitably 
shown  to  be  substantial  emanations,  why  not  all  the  others? 
The  argument  thus  seems  absolutely  conclusive. 

Indeed,  may  we  not  claim  it  to  be  a  truism,  so  well  settled  in 
the  very  texture  of  science  as  to  entitle  it  to  be  received  as  axio- 
matic by  any  mind  capable  of  philosophical  thought,  that,  as  no 
ponderable  body  can  move  of  itself,  so  no  body,  such  as  the  iron 
armature  referred  to,  can  move  unless  acted  upon  by  a  real  sub- 
stance emanating  from  some  source  of  power  ?  Can  any  logical 
mind  dispute  such  self-evident  truth  ?  If  not,  then  have  we  not, 
in  the  most  convincing  manner,  demonstrated  in  magnetic  at- 
traction and  repulsion  an  active,  powerful  substance  existing  en- 
tirely outside  of  the  domain  of  materiality,  which  defies  all  ma- 
terial conditions  or  material  explanations,  and  which  has  not 
one  material  property  ? 

True,  this  magnetic  substance  appears  to  cease  to  exist  when 
it  ceases  its  manifestations.  But  it  does  not  and  cannot  cease  to 
exist,  in  the  very  nature  of  things.  As  it  is  admitted  to  be  a 
real  force,  the  theory  of  the  "conservation  of  the  forces,"  now 


170  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

in  a  strict  scientific  sense,  can  produce  nothing  nor  cause 
any  effect. 

Q.  19.  If  sound  or  electricity  is  generated  alone  by  the 
mechanical  force  which  gives  motion  to  the  fork  or  mag- 
nets, do  not  these  resultant  forms  of  force  actually  come 
into  existence  by  such  process? 

A.  Yes,  in  the  sense  of  such  manifested  or  special 
forms  of  force.  But  in  the  sense  of  the  substantial  force- 
element  of  Nature,  the  essence  of  all  force,  from  which 
these  forms  of  force  were  liberated  or  evolved  by  the 
physical  process  named,  they  did  not  come  into  existence 
by  such  process,  but  are  the  mere  conversions  from 

accepted  as  science,  precludes  the  possibility  of  such  magnetic 
substance  being  annihilated.  Whatever  becomes  of  it,  and  how- 
ever it  may  be  dispersed  throughout  space,  or  be  diffused  so  that 
its  active  effects  cease  to  be  recognized  by  us,  it  nevertheless 
continues  to  exist  in  some  essential  and  substantial  form,  or  the 
so-called  "conservation  of  the  forces"  of  Nature  cannot  be 
true. 

Here,  then,  is  where  Substantialism  practically  began.  Here 
is  where  it  drove  its  first  stake,  pitched  its  tent,  and  from  which 
point  it  took  its  first  philosophical  bearings.  If  one  of  the  ac- 
knowledged physical  forces,  namely  magnetism,  is  thus  shown 
to  be  not  a  mere  technical  vaguity  or  meaningless  myth  of 
science,  but  a  real  immaterial  substance,  as  we  have  here  found 
it  to  be,  then  reason  would  tell  us,  yea  does  tell  us,  as  just  in- 
timated, that  every  other  force  is  equally  substantial,  unless 
some  insuperable  difficulty  shall  be  found  to  interfere  which 
necessarily  precludes  such  substantial  hypothesis.  But  no  such 
interference  in  any  of  the  forces,  after  the  most  critical  and 
searching  investigation,  occurs.  On  the  contrary,  rather,  once 
admit  the  existence  of  immaterial  substance  as  a  settled  fact,  as 
magnetism  compels  us  to  do,  and  then  admit  four  of  the  natural 
forces — magnetism,  gravity,  electricity  and  heat — to  be  really 
substantial,  as  the  first  one  irresistibly  forces  us  to  do,  and  is  it 
reasonable  or  philosophical,  after  such  data,  not  to  include  every 
other  natural  force,  or  whatever  produces  sensuous  manifesta- 
tions, in  the  same  category  ?  Thus  logically  were  we  I  od  step 
by  step  into  Substantialism. —Dr.  Hall,  in  Microcosm,  Vol.  III., 
pp.  279-311. 


THE  NATURE  AND  PHENOMENA  OF  SOUND.  171 

such  force-element,  into  these  forms  of  force  for 
special  manifestations.  As  substance  in  the  primordial 
sense  can  neither  absolutely  come  into  existence,  nor 
cease  to  exist,  and  as  this  is  an  indisputable  scientific 
nxiom,  hence  everything  in  the  universe,  material  and 
immaterial,  must  in  its  finer  essence  or  ultimate  sub- 
stance have  always  existed — not  as  gross  matter,  nor 
even  as  the  crude  force-element,  for  that  matter,  but  as 
the  infinitely  sublimed  primordial  and  incorporeal  ele- 
ment or  essence  from  which  and  out  of  which  the  infinite 
and  intelligent  Ego  created  all  the  manifested  forms  of 
substance  in  the  universe.  The  law  of  the  conservation 
of  force,  so  universally  taught  and  believed,  not  only 
proves  force  in  every  form  to  be  an  entity,  but  it  pre- 
cludes the  possibility  of  its  destruction,  as  much  so  as  if 
it  were  matter  itself.  If  it  would  be  impossible  for  mat- 
ter to  be  annihilated,  or  converted  into  nothing,  it  would 
be  equally  impossible  for  matter  or  any  form  of  force  to 
be  created  out  of  nothing.  Hence,  it  is  the  rational  phi- 
losophical view,  that  all  substances  in  Nature,  including 
the  forces  as  well  as  the  force-element  from  which  the 
various  forms  of  force  emanate,  were  originally,  or  in 
their  last  analysis,  the  exterior  element  or  substantial 
clothing,  so  to  speak,  of  the  infinite,  substantial,  un- 
treated, and  intelligent  First  Cause  o£  all  the  entities  in 
the  universe.  It  is  therefore  regarded  as  the  more  ra- 
tional and  philosophical  view  to  take,  that  the  universe 
was  created  out  of  something  rather  than  out  of  nothing, 
since  something  in  abundance  may  have  existed  from 
eternity,  as  the  things  which  are  not  seen — the  invisible 
things  of  God— out  of  which  to  create  every  thing,  even 
without  involving  the  idea  of  the  eternity  of  matter.* 

NEW  YORK,  September  12,  1885. 
*  Dear  Dr.  Hall  : 

Your  argument  in  reply  to  Dr.  Stone  in  the  September  Micro- 
cosm has  thrown  a  flood  of  light  on   the  subject  of  Creation. 


1?2  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

Q.  20.  On  what  analogical  ground  should  sound  be 
regarded  as  a  substantial  entity,  and  not  as  a  mode  of 
motion,  as  present  science  teaches? 

A.  On  the  analogical  ground  of  the  consistent  and 
harmonious  uniformity  of  Nature's  laws  and  principles 
of  proceeding.  As  heat,  electricity,  magnetism,  etc. — 
all  phenomena-producing  causes  in  Nature — are  among 
the  self-evident  substantial  or  entitative  forces  of  Nature, 
it  would  be  incongruous  and  out  of  all  consistent  har- 
mony, for  sound  and  light,  equally  phenomena-producing 
causes,  not  likewise  to  be  substantial  forces  or  objective 
entities.  And  as  the  senses  of  smell,  taste,  and  tactility 

Clearly,  if  Dr.  Stone's  view  is  correct,  nothing  must  be  the  exact 
equivalent  of  an  entity,  as  you  have  logically  insisted.  If  I 
were  able  to  "  frame"  a  house  out  of  nothing,  as  the  worlds  were 
supposed  by  Dr.  Stone  to  be  "framed  by  the  word  of  God," 
even  if  I  possessed  infinite  power,  I  should  regard  nothing  as  a 
good  enough  entity  for  all  practical  purposes  of  material  con- 
struction. The  very  fact  that  God  must  be  immanent  or  pres- 
ent in  Nature,  in  order  to  sustain  it,  according  to  the  faith  of 
most  Christians,  and  the  very  fact  that  without  the  immaterial 
force  of  cohesion,  as  you  have  shown,  all  material  bodies  would 
at  once  disappear,  is  sufficient  proof  that  it  is  through  and  by 
means  of  the  physical  forces  that  God's  presence  is  made  mani- 
fest in  Nature.  And  if  God  is  actually  present  in  Nature,  and 
controls  it  through  the  immaterial  force-element  in  its  various 
manifested  forms,  there  is  nothing  illogical  or  irreverent  in  sup- 
posing that  this  same, immaterial  element  was  the  original  por- 
tion of  God's  exterior  essence  out  of  which  the  worlds  were 
made.  How  natural,  then,  is  Paul's  statement  that  the  worlds 
were  "  framed  "  of  things  that  do  not  appear,  or  in  other  words, 
of  the  "  invisible  things  of  Him."  Heb  xi.  3;  Rom.  i.  20. 

The  argument  advanced  by  you  in  reply  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Barr. 
of  Philadelphia,  as  printed  in  the  "  Problem  of  Human  Life," 
at  page  52,  is  one  of  the  strongest  scriptural  arguments  against 
the  nothing  theory  yet  presented,  and  I  cannot  imagine  how 
any  one  would  attempt  to  answer  it,  namely,  that  the  "  Word 
was  God,"  and  the  "  Word  was  made  flesh."  As  the  flesh  of 
Christ  was  literally  material,  it  is  plain  that  God  did,  at  least  in 
one  instance,  himself  change  into  matter,  and  it  is  equally  truo 


THE  NATURE  AND  PHENOMENA   OF  SOUND.  173 

can  only  be  addressed,  and  their  sensuous  impressions 
produced  by  substantial  contact  with  these  organs,  it 
would  be  entirely  unwarranted  to  suppose  an  abrupt 
change  to  nonentitative  motion  in  the  sensations  of  hear- 
ing and  sigh L 

Q.  21.  Are  there  any  direct  and  positive  proofs  that 
sound  does  not  consist  of  air-waves,  or  of  condensations 
and  rarefactions,  as  taught  in  the  present  theory  of 
acoustics? 

A.  Yes,  many  such  proofs.  One  is,  that  if  sound  is 
constituted  of  condensations  and  rarefactions  of  the  air, 
caused  by  the  to  and  fro  vibrations  of  the  sounding 

that  the  mere  flesh  of  Christ,  after  its  creation,  was  no  more  a 
part  of  God  than  is  the  flesh  of  any  other  person.  Then  the  ar- 
gument is  overwhelming,  if  God  as  the  Word  could  be  made 
into  material  flesh,  dare  we  assert  that  God  as  the  Word  could 
not  be  made  into  a  material  World  or  a  material  universe?  It 
is  also  very  plain  that  in  the  creation  of  Adam  the  soul  or  spir- 
itual part  came  direct  from  God,  as  a  part  of  his  own  spiritual 
essence,  and  by  which  man  was  made  in  the  image  of  God.  la 
it  likely  that  God  made  one  half  of  Adam  out  of  his  own  essen- 
tial being,  and  that  the  other  half  (or  that  out  of  which  it  was 
made)  came  from  nothing  ?  Is  it  not  more  probable  that  the 
whole  man,  soul,  body  and  spirit,  came  directly  or  indirectly 
from  the  substantial  being  of  God  ?  Would  it  not  be  well  for 
those  who  advocate  the  nothing  hypothesis  to  stop  raising  triv- 
ial objections  long  enough  to  answer  a  few  of  your  strong  argu- 
ments ? 

Query, — If  God  was  in  the  habit  of  making  things  out  of  noth- 
ing, why  did  he  change  his  plan  and  make  Adam's  body  out  of 
the  dust  of  the  earth  ?  Why  did  he  not  consistently  adhere  to 
his  uniform  process  and  make  Adam's  body  out  of  nothing? 
If  it  was  actually  necessary  for  God  to  use  some  previously  ex- 
isting substance  out  of  which  to  make  so  small  a  thing  as 
Adam's  body,  is  it  at  all  likely  that  he  could  make  larger  things, 
such  as  worlds,  out  of  nothing  9 

ROBERT  ROGERS,  Office  Editor  of  the  Scientific  Arena. 
— Microcosm,  Vol.  V.,  page  45.  See  also  Chapter  I.  of  this 
volume. 


174  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

body,  it  would  follow  that  the  vibrating  body  of  a  given 
size,  which  makes  the  greatest  condensation  and  rarefac- 
tion of  the  air,  or  which  swings  furthest  at  a  given  rate 
of  vibrations  per  second,  should  necessarily  cause  the 
most  intense  sound,  and  consequently  should  be  heard 
throughout  the  greatest  range  of  distance. 

Q.  22.  Are  there  any  exceptions  to  such  a  principle 
in  sounding  bodies?  That  is  to  say,  are  there  any  sound- 
ing instruments  which  produce  little  vibration  or  mechan- 
ical effects  on  the  air,  and  which,  at  the  same  time,  pro- 
duce more  sound  than  other  instruments  of  the  same 
pitch  of  vibrational  number  which  produce  vastly  greater 
atmospheric  condensations  and  rarefactions? 

A.  Yes:  there  are  many  such  conclusive  illustrations 
among  sounding  bodies.  For  example,  let  us  strike  a 
tuning-fork  heavily  when  held  in  the  fingers,  or  thrum  a 
heavy  string  when  stretched  over  iron  supports,  and 
neither  of  them  can  be  heard  more  than  six  or  eight  feet 
away,  notwithstanding  its  powerful  action  on  the  air  in 
generating  so-called  condensations  and  rarefactions. 
Yet  a  species  of  locust,  an  insect  not  a  thousandth  part 
as  heavy,  and  with  not  a  tenth  part  as  much  vibratory 
motion  as  the  tuning-fork  or  string,  though  of  the  same 
rate  and  pitch  of  tone,  when  sitting  on  a  green  leaf,  can 
be  heard  a  mile  in  all  directions,  or  more  than  eight  hun- 
dred times  further  away,  than  can  either  the  fork  or  the 
string,  while  by  the  actual  space  filled  with  its  tone,  it 
generates  more  than  80,000,000  times  as  much  sound. 
This  is  conclusive  proof  that  sound  does  not  in  any  man- 
ner consist  of  air- waves,  or  of  atmospheric  condensations 
or  rarefactions,  as  claimed  by  former  physicists.* 

*  Now  it  is  a  fact  that  a  tuning-fork  of  the  largest  size,  when 
caused  to  vibrate  at  its  best,  cannot  be  heard,  held  in  the  open 
air,  half-a-dozen  feet  away,  while  one  of  these  locusts,  having 
not  a  tenth  part  as  much  surface  by  which  to  act  on  the  air, 


THE  NATURE  AND  PHENOMENA  OF  SOUND.       175 

Q.  23.  Is  it  possible  to  generate  sound  without  the 
vibrating  instrument  producing  condensations  of  the  air? 

A.  Yes;  when  the  vibrating  instrument  moves  through 
the  air  at  a  velocity  so  low,  that  the  mobility  of  the  air 
suffices  to  restore  its  equilibrium  without  its  undergoing 
compression. 

Q.  24.  Has  any  such  exceedingly  slow  vibratory  veloc- 
ity ever  been  observed  and  measured? 

A.     Yes;   it  has  been  mathematically  determined  by 

and  not  a  tenth  the  vibratory  action  or  distance  of  swing,  can 
be  distinctly  heard  more  than  a  mile  away,  and  so  loud  is  its 
sound  when  within  a  few  feet  of  it,  that  it  is  almost  deafening! 
If,  then,  both  this  insect  and  the  tuning-fork  produce  their 
sound  by  the  air-pulses  sent  off,  and  by  nothing  else,  will  some 
Prof.  Mayer,  Tyndall,  Stokes,  Rood,  Helmholtz,  Lord  Raleigh, 
or  Sir  Wm.  Thomson  rise  and  explain  why  it  is  that  the  vastly 
larger  and  more  powerful  air-waves  or  condensations  and  rare- 
factions sent  off  from  the  the  tuning-fork  make  no  sensible  tone 
six  feet  away  from  their  source,  while  the  vastly  less  agitation 
of  the  air  by  the  vastly  less  surface  and  less  extent  of  swing  of 
the  locust  is  distinctly  audible  a  mile  in  all  directions?  Come, 
gentlemen,  this  is  a  serious  matter  for  your  theory,  and  must  be 
explained  unless  you  intend  to  abandon  it.  You  dare  not  ignore 
the  difficulty,  or  pretend  that  it  is  of  no  consequence.  It  is  of 
the  greatest  consequence,  because  of  its  great  simplicity  in 
reaching  the  popular  mind.  The  smallest  child  in  school  and 
the  most  unscientific  old  lady  in  the  land  can  see  its  force 
against  the  wave-theory,  if  they  ever  saw  a  tuning-fork  or  ever 
heard  a  locust  stridulate.  Were  the  problem  involved  as  deep 
and  abstruse  as  the  density  and  elasticity  formula  with  Laplace's 
generation  of  sonorous  heat,  or  as  the  mobility  and  compressi- 
bility problem  discussed  this  month,  then  you  might  hope  that 
its  popular  effect  would  be  limited.  But  you  have  no  such  hope 
in  this  case.  Schoolgirls  will  soon  begin  to  laugh  at  the  wave- 
theory  of  sound  as  an  absurdity,  unless  you  explain  how  the 
diminutive  locust,  not  one- thousandth  part  as  heavy  as  the 
tuninsr-fork,  with  not  one-hundredth  part  as  much  air- wave- 
prod  ucing  effect,  can  be  heard  a  mile  away,  while  the  fork  can- 
noL  be  heard  six  feet,  and  still  sound  be  nothing  but  air- waves! — 
Dr.  Hall,  in  the  Microcosm,  Vol.  Ill,  page  218. 


176  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

absolute  mechanical  measurement,  that  a  -tuning-fork 
will  sound  audibly,  held  in  the  fingers,  when  its  prongs, 
though  alternating  rapidly,  have  so  nearly  come  to  rest, 
and  consequently  when  they  are  moving  over  such  an  in- 
finitesimal space  at  each  swing,  that  their  actual  velocity 
of  travel,  at  the  swiftest  portion  of  the  oscillation,  is  less 
than  at  the  rate  of  one  inch  in  two  years,  or  about  twenty- 
five  thousand  times  slower  than  the  hour  hand  of  a  family 
clock  ! 

Q.  25.  By  what  mechanical  process  is  it  possible  to 
measure  such  slow  motion? 

A.  It  is  done  by  a  method  discovered  and  first  an- 
nounced by  A.  Wilford  Hall,  founder  of  the  Substantial 
Philosophy,  as  set  forth  in  the  Microcosm,  Vol.  III.,  page 
90,  and  carried  out  mathematically  by  Capt.  E.  Kelso 
Carter,  Professor  of  Higher  Mathematics  in  Pennsylvania 
Military  Institute,  as  set  forth  in  the  same  volume,  page 
154.  This  method,  though  very  simple,  requires  too  much 
space  for  these  answers;  so  the  reader  is  referred  to  the 
volume  containing  it.* 

*  We  have  demonstrated,  in  the  mathematical  sense  of  the 
term  (and  we  will  not  keep  the  modus  operandi  a  secret),  that  a 
tuning-fork  will  sound  audibly,  held  in  the  fingers,  when  its 
pro7igs  are  not  traveling  to  and  fro  a  distance  of  the  one  sixteen- 
millionth  of  an  inch!  Doubling  this  distance,  for  the  swing 
both  ways,  and  we  have  the  one  eight-millionth  of  an  inch  as  the 
entire  travel  of  the  prong  through  one  complete  vibration.  Let 
us  then  use  a  fork  having  256  vibrations  in  a  second  and  we  have 
the  entire  distance  traveled  by  such  prong  but  the  one  thirty- 
thousandth  of  an  inch  in  a  second  !  Counting  the  swiftest  ve- 
locity of  the  prong's  travel  at  its  centre  of  swing  as  three  times 
this  aggregate  distance  passed  over,  which  is  more  than  the  facts 
require,  and  we  have,  as  the  unanswerable  result,  a  fork  sound- 
ing audibly  when  its  prongs  are  traveling  only  at  a  velocity  of  the 
one  ten-thousandth  of  an  inch  in  a  second  at  its  swiftest  motion, 
or  at  the  rate  of  about  one-third  of  an  inch  in  an  hour!  Is  any 
professor  of  physics  in  America  or  elsewhere  prepared  to  assert 
that  such  velocity  of  travel  by  a  tuning-fork's  prong  will  con- 


THE  NATURE  AND  PHENOMENA  OF  SOUND.  177 

Q.  26.  By  what  law  of  physics  is  the  necessary  veloc- 
ity of  a  body  moving  in  a  free  fluid  determined  in  order 
to  outstrip  mobility  and  begin  to  produce  compression? 

A.  By  what  Dr.  Hall  was  first  to  announce  as  the 
union-limit  in  every  fluid  between  its  mobility  and  its 
compressibility,  or  the  point  at  which  velocity  of  motion 
has  so  increased  that  mobility  alone  cannot  restore  dis- 
placement quick  enough,  and  compression  must  there- 
fore begin.  This  union-limit  is  lo  vest  of  course  in  the 
lighter  and  more  compressible  gases,  and  becomes  higher 
and  higher,  requiring  greater  and  greater  velocity  of  the 
moving  body,  as  the  compressibility  of  the  fluid  increases. 

dense  the  air  and  send  off  air-waves  at  the  velocity  of  sound,  or 
1120  feet  in  a  second  ?  Yet  it  is  a  positive  fact  that  Prof.  Tyn- 
dall  describes  this  very  motion  of  .the  prong — one  third  of  an 
inch  in  an  hour — as  "  swiftly  advancing,''  while  the  greatest  liv- 
ing physicists-Prof.  Helmholtz— declares  that  such  prong,  in 
order  to  produce  sound,  must  travel  "  very  much  faster"  than 
the  pendulum  of  a  clock  in  lull  swing!  Is  it  possible  that  the 
professors  of  our  great  colleges  will  not  be  able  to  see  and  feel 
the  annihilating  force  of  this  demonstration  against  the  received 
theory  of  acoustics  ? 

But  the  scientific  student  naturally  asks,  and  has  a  right  to 
ask,  how  is  it  possible  for  you  to"  demonstrate"  mathematically 
and  mechanically  such  an  astonishing  result,  and  thus  actually 
measure  the  travel  of  a  prong  when  swinging  to  and  fro  a  dis- 
tance of  only  the  one  sixteen-millionth  of  an  inch  ?  We  answer, 
easily  enough.  It  only  requires  a  little  practical,  original  com- 
mon sense,  after  first  entirely  ignoring  the  misleading  text- books 
on  the  subject,  and  any  beginner  in  natural  philosophy,  having 
a  good  tuning-fork,  can  make  the  same  demonstration.  Here 
it  is,  and  let  wave-theorists  take  particular  notice. 

From  Microcosm,  Vol.  Ill,  page  9^ .  The  following  is  Capt. 
Carter's  confirmation  and  description  of  Dr.  Hall's  demonstra- 
tion: 

CAPT.  CARTER'S  REPORT. 

DEAR  DR.  HALL, — According  to  my  promise,  as  printed  in  the 
November  Microcosm,  I  now  proceed  to  give  you  my  report  of 
experiments  on  the  slow  motion  of  a  tuning-fork's  prongs,  in 
confirmation  of  your  "finishing  demonstration"  as  given  in 


178  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

The  union-limit  for  such  compression-velocity  is  ration- 
ally to  be  calculated  from  the  two  factors,  namely,  the 
superficial  area  of  the  moving  body,  and  the  density  of 
the  fluid. 

Q.  27.  What  general  proof  is  there  that  this  law  of 
u niori -limit  between  mobility  and  compressibility  must 
hold  good? 

A.  The  fact  that  water  is  practically  incompressible, 
except  when  great  mechanical  force  is  employed,  and  the 
ease  with  which  mobility  entirely  suffices  for  restoring 
equilibrium  when  the  weakest  fishes  can  make  rapid 
headway  through  it,  thereby  allowing  of  easy  displace- 

reply  to  Prof.  Stahr,  in  the  October  Microcosm.  The  following 
are  the  results  of  my  experiments: 

I  used  a  large  Koenig  fork  of  256  vibrations.  Striking  it  heav- 
ily and  holding  it  upright  in  my  fingers,  I  found  that  its  sound 
was  clearly  audible  (either  held  to  the  ear  or  through  a  long  rub- 
ber tube,)  at  the  end  of  four  minutes.  By  means  of  a  finely 
graduated  scale  I  easily  measured  the  amplitude  of  the  fork's 
swing.  I  found  it  to  be  at  first  4-60  (1-15)  of  an  inch.  At  the 
end  of  fifteen  seconds  it  had  reduced  to  1-60  of  an  inch  ampli- 
tude. At  the  end  of  fifteen  seconds  more,  its  motion  was  barely 
visible  against  the  sky.  Now  I  can  easily  see  a  line  of  1-240  of 
an  inch  in  breadth,  which  proves  that  the  amplitude  had  again 
diminished  to  one-fourth.  In  the  third  fifteen  seconds,  the  mo- 
tion had  become  totally  invisible,  even  through  a  good  magni- 
fier. Safe  to  assume  another  fourth,  or  a  reduction  of  ampli- 
tude to  1-960  of  an  inch  for  each  swing. 

Now  there  are  sixteen  times  fifteen  seconds  in  four  minutes, 
hence  I  have  the  1-15  of  an  inch  swing  reduced  by  four  as  a 
divisor,  sixteen  times,  or  in  round  numbers  to  1-64,000,000,000 
of  an  inch  at  each  swing.  As  the  prong  swings  through  this 
amplitude,  counting  both  directions,  512  times  in  a  second,  we 
have  the  entire  distance  the  prong  travels,  while  still  sounding 
audibly,  but  the  1-123,000,000  of  an  inch  in  a  second.  There  are 
in  round  numbers  31,500,000  seconds  in  a  year.  Hence  the 
prong  moves  at  the  rate  of  only  about  one  inch  in  four  years  ! 
Allowing  one-half  for  the  swifter  travel  of  the  prong  at  the  cen- 
ter as  compared  with  its  average  travel  throughout  a  swing, 


THE  NATURE  AND  PHENOMENA  OF  SOUND.  179 

merits  and  restorations  of  this  fluid  by  mobility  alone. 
Then  the  additional  fact  that  water,  even  if  this  small 
fraction  of  remaining  compressibility  were  removed, 
would  still  be  practically  as  mobile  as  it  is  now,  causing 
fishes  to  experience  no  more  inconvenience  in  making 
headway  through  it  than  at  present,  is  a  clear  proof  that 
mobility  in  air  is  all  that  is  needed  for  the  restoration  of 
equilibrium  without  compression,  especially  when  a  body 
moves  slowly  through  it,  as  is  the  case  with  all  vibrating 
instruments,  their  very  swiftest  travel  being  of  less  ve- 
locity than  a  dozen  feet  in  a  second  Should  the  remain- 
ing small  fraction  of  compressibility  be  removed  from 

and  we  have  the  astounding  fact  that  the  fork  continues  to  pro- 
duce audible  sound  while  its  prongs,  at  their  swiftest  motion,  are 
not  foaveling  at  a  velocity  of  more  than  one  inch  in  two  years  I 
As  your  demonstration  only  brought  down  the  prong's  swiftest 
travel  while  still  sounding  to  one  inch  in  three  hours,  I  have, 
therefore,  made  the  proof  more  than  5000  times  stronger  against 
the  wave-theory  than  you  had  it,  instead  of  400  times,  as  I 
promised  last  month.  Let  physicists  dispose  of  these  figures  if 
they  can,  or  forever  after  hold  their  peace. 

Yours,  for  the  truth, 

R.  KELSO  CARTER. 

REMARKS  ON  THE  FOREGOING,  BY  DR.  HALL. 

We  sincerely  thank  our  excellent  contributor,  Captain  Carter, 
for  his  efficient  aid  in  carrying  out  our  demonstration  against 
the  wave-theory  to  its  legitimate  result,  by  means  of  his  supe- 
rior fork  and  his  mathematical  skill.  Think  of  the  astonishing 
vfact  of  a  fork  sounding  audibly  when  the  swiftest  travel  of  its 
prongs  is  only  at  a  velocity  of  one  inch  in  two  years,  and  then 
compare  this  with  the  well-known  teaching  of  the  text-books! 
As  proof  that  this  demonstration  leaves  the  wave-theory  hope- 
lessly broken  down,  we  simply  quote  the  following  from  Prof. 
Tyndall's  text-book,  which  is  a  standard  authority  on  acoustics 
in  all  colleges: 

"Imagine  one  of  the  prongs  of  the  vibrating  fork  swiftly 
advancing.  It  compresses  the  air  immediately  in  front  of  it, 
and  when  it  retreats  it  leaves  a  partial  vacuum  behind,  the 
process  being  repeated  at  every  subsequent  advance  and  retreat. 
The  irhole  function  of  the  tuning-fork  is  to  carve  the  air  into 


180  THE  SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

water,  the  union-limit  in  such  case  would  rise  to  infinity, 
mobility  alone  answering  every  purpose  of  restoring 
equilibrium  and  adjusting  displacements,  whatever  the 
velocity  or  superficial  area  of  the  displacing  body  might 
be. 

\  Q.  28.  What  is  the  logical  inference  intended  to  be 
drawn  from  the  foregoing  facts  and  laws? 

A.  If  mobility  alone  could  suffice  for  the  restoration 
of  all  displacements,  even  if  a  cannon  ball  should  pass 
under  full  velocity  through  such  a  fluid,  and  without 
necessitating  any  compression  whatever,  is  it  not  positive 
proof  that  the  velocity  of  a  moving  prong  25,000  times 
less  than  that  of  the  hour  hand  of  a  clock,  does  not  con- 
dense the  air  at  all?  This  being  so,  is  it  not  proof 
equally  positive,  that  the  sound  heard  in  the  case  of  such 
slow  motion,  is  not  the  result  of  air-waves,  but  that  it 

these  condensations  and  rarefactions." — Lecture  on  Sound, 
p.  62. 

Professor  Helmholtz,  the  highest  living  authority  on  acous- 
tics, maintains  the  same  view;  and  insists  in  various  ways,  that 
the  vibrating  prong  or  string  must  pass  swiftly  through  the  air, 
in  order  to  condense  it  and  send  off  air- waves.  Here  is  a  speci- 
men of  his  teaching: 

"  The  pendulum  swings  from  the  right  to  the  left  with  a  uni- 
form motion.  .  .  .  Near  to  either  end  of  its  path  it  moves 
slowly,  and  in  the  middle  fast.  Among  sonorous  bodies  which 
move  in  the  same  way,  only  very  much  faster,  we  may  mention 
tuning-forks." — Sensations  of  Tone,  p.  28. 

How  preposterous  all  this  now  appears  after  reading  the  start- 
ling facts  as  arrayed  in  Capt.  Carter's  Report! 

We  now  earnestly  ask  every  candid  student  of  science  to  ex- 
amine this  unavoidable  teaching  of  the  wave-theory  in  the  light 
of  the  absolute  facts  here  developed  that  the  prong  instead  of 
"  swiftly  advancing,"  sounds  audibly  when  moving  more  than 
25,000  times  slower  than  the  hour-hand  of  a  family  clock,  and 
more  than  300,000,000  times  slower  than  any  clock-pendulum 
ever  constructed,  instead  of  "very  much  faster"  as  Helmholtz 
teaches  !— Microcosm,  Vol.  Ill,  pages  154,  155, 


THE  NATURE  AND  PHENOMENA  OF  SOUND.  181 

must  bo  a  substantial  force,  evolved  and  sent  off,  analo- 
gous to  electricity?* 

Q.  29.  If  air-waves,  or  atmospheric  condensations 
and  rarefactions,  do  not  constitute  sound,  how  are  we  to 
account  for  the-  fact  that  no  sound  is  heard  from  a  ring- 
ing bell  in  an  exhausted  receiver? 

A.  Substantial  sound -force  requires  a  conducting  me- 
dium as  much  as  substantial  electric  force.'x  The  air 
being  the  ordinary  conductor  of  sound,  it  follows  that 
the  sound  of  a  perfectly  insulated  bell  in  an  exhausted  re- 
ceiver has  no  medium  of  conduction  to  the  outside  air, 

*  Having  thus  premised,  let  us  in  all  seriousness  come  directly 
to  the  merits  of  the  discussion,  and  see  if  this  controversy  can- 
not be  ended.  Now  I  assert,  as  a  scientific  proposition,  that  the 
motion  of  a  body  below  a  certain  velocity  in  a  mobile  fluid  can 
produce  no  compression  or  condensation  whatever,  either  at  the 
commencement  of  the  motion  or  at  any  part  of  its  continuance. 
In  other  words,  I  undertake  to  show  that  mobility  alone  is 
abundantly  sufficient  to  provide  the  facilities  for  restoring 
equilibrium  in  the  disturbance  of  every  mobile  fluid,  and  thus 
to  prevent  any  possible  condensation  of  its  particles  if  the 
velocity  of  motion  causing  the  disturbance  is  below  a  certain 
rate,  which  rate  I  will  approximately  assign  as  the  discussion 
advances.  But  as  the  reasoning  and  proofs  leading  to  these 
important  conclusions  necessarily  involve  laws  and  principles 
of  physics  never  before  presented,  and  not  of  course  to  be  found 
in  any  scientific  book,  I  will  be  compelled  to  be  somewhat  prolix 
in  their  introduction,  so  that  one  addicted  to  the  old  grooves  of 
science  like  yourself  may  comprehend  their  force  and  bearing. 

In  the  first  place  allow  me  to  state  that  mobility  and  com- 
pressibility in  a  given  fluid,  such  as  air  or  water,  are  two  separate 
and  distinct  properties  of  matter;  but  they  necessarily  co- 
operate in  the  phenomena  of  condensations,  rarefactions,  pulses, 
etc.,  such  as  we  are  here  discussing.  Now  let  me  state  a  law 
before  attempting  to  go  further.  That  law  is  this,  that  in  a 
given  fluid  the  properties  of  mobility  and  compressibility  have  a 
point  of  union-limit  as  to  velocity  for  co  operation;  below  this 
limit  no  velocity  of  a  moving  body  can  produce  compression 
either  at  its  start  or  any  where  else.  That  is  to  say,  the  mobility 


182  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

and  hence  cannot  be  heard.  But  let  the  bell  rest  on  the 
wooden  bed  of  the  receiver,  and  it  can  be  heard  about  as 
well  in  the  vacuum  as  with  the  receiver  full  of  air,  since 
the  wood  now  becomes  the  sound-conductor  to  the  out- 
side air,  and  through  it  to  the  ear. 

Q.  30.  What  part  does  resonance  play  in  the  produc- 
tion of  sound? 

A.  It  augments  or  multiplies  sound  by  more  widely 
distributing  this  substantial  force  through  the  air,  some- 

of  the  fluid  has  such  effect  as  to  restore  equilibrium  or  equalize 
the  displacement  of  particles  before  and  behind  the  displacing 
body  without  any  compression  whatever  taking  place  until  the 
velocity  of  motion  has  reached  this  point  of  union-limit  between 
the  two  properties,  when  compression  first  begins,  and  then 
increases  more  and  more  in  the  exact  ratio  as  the  velocity  of 
motion  is  augmented.  Thus  we  begin  to  see  light,  shining  upon 
a  problem  which  your  bare  assertions  about  the  commencement 
or  the  "  first  instant  "  of  a  motion  exceeding  the  limits  of  mo- 
bility, would  leave  forever  in  the  dark. 

If  the  compressibility  of  a  fluid  be  very  low,  that  is,  if  it 
requires  very  little  force  to  compress  it,  as  in  the  case  of  air, 
then  the  union-limit  of  the  two  properties  in  that  fluid  is  cor- 
respondingly low,  and  the  velocity  of  motion  required  to  com- 
press is  low  in  the  same  ratio;  that  is  to  say,  it  requires  but  a 
very  moderate  velocity  to  reach  this  compression-point  or  limit 
and  begin  condensation.  But  if  the  compressibility  of  a  fluid  be 
high,  that  is,  if  it  require  great  force  to  compress  it,  as  in  the 
case  of  water  or  quicksilver,  then  the  union-limit  in  that  fluid, 
as  well  as  the  velocity  of  motion  needed  to  begin  compression, 
must  be  correspondingly  high.  Hence  a  condensation  in  such  a 
fluid  (nearly  incompressible  like  water)  requires  manifold  greater 
velocity  in  the  moving  body  than  in  air. 

Now,  I  purpose  to  startle  you  by  an  assertion  which,  if  cor- 
rect, upsets  all  you  have  written  or  ever  can  write  on  this  sub- 
ject, but  which  assertion  will  be  borne  out  by  facts  and  reason, 
namely,  that  there  is  absolutely  no  limit  to  the  property  of  mo- 
bility in  a  mobile  fluid  like  air  or  water,  and  that  no  motion  oj 
a  body,  however  high  its  velocity,  could  overcome  the  effect  of 
mobility  to  restore  equilibrium  without  condensation  even  in  air 
if  this  property  were  alone  involved.  But  compressibility  comes 


THE  NATURE  AND  PHENOMENA  OF  SOUND.  183 

thing  as  heat-force  of  a  given  quantity  would  have  a  more 
intensified  radiation  if  spread  out  over  the  surface  of  suit- 
able metal. 

Q.  31.  Is  not  the  resonant  increase  or  augmentation 
of  sound  caused  by  the  increased  vibratory  surface  of  the 
sound-boards  employed  in  musical  instruments,  such  as 
pianos,  harps,  violins,  etc. 

A.  No,  not  in  the  slightest  degree.  A  tuning-fork, 
for  example,  will  increase  its  sound  a  hundredfold  in 

in  as  a  correlated  property  of  fluids,  and  as  soon  as  the  restoring 
effect  of  mobility  has  reached  their  union-limit  of  velocity,  com- 
pressibility joins  in  the  effect,  and  then  part  of  the  effect  which 
mobility,  if  alone,  would  easily  have  accomplished  in  producing 
restoration  of  equilibrium  is  converted  into  condensation  and  a 
consequent  pulse  through  this  co-operating  property  of  com- 
pressibility. Let  me  now  demonstrate  this  law  and  general 
statement  to  be  true  in  science.  Air  is  known  to  be  fully 
10,000  times  as  compressible  as  water,  yet  the  mobility  of  water 
is  the  same  exactly  as  that  of  air,  so  far  as  any  difference  can 
be  detected  by  science.  Now,  as  water  is  almost  wholly  incom- 
pressible, it  is  reasonable  to  believe  if  it  were  reduced  to  absolute 
incompressibility  that  it  would  still  be  just  as  mobile  as  it  is 
now,  since  no  lessening  of  mobility  occurs  in  10,000  reductions 
of  compressibility  from  that  of  air.  The  grand  scientific  result 
and  conclusion  follow,  and  which  annihilate  your  pivotal  argu- 
ment, and  with  it  of  course  the  wave-theory,  that  in  such  an 
incompressible  fluid  the  mobility  of  the  particles  alone  would 
allow  any  and  all  displacements  to  be  restored,  whatever  the 
velocity  or  size  of  the  moving  body,  since,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
no  condensation  or  pulse  could  occur,  under  whatever  velocity, 
in  an  incompressible  fluid !  Hence  mobility,  per  se,  is  absolutely 
without  limit  in  its  capacity  for  allowing,  when  necessary,  the 
restoration  of  displaced  particles  in  a  mobile  fluid. 

Thus  our  new  scientific  law  is  sustained,  and  your  supposed 
overwhelming  argument,  to  save  the  wave-theory,  and  upon 
which  you  have  fatally  staked  the  whole  controversy,  has  been 
logically  turned  against  you,  since  you  must  see  how  easy  it  is 
for  our  position  to  be  correct,  that  mobility  is  all-sufficienfrsto 
permit  the  restoration  of  equilibrium  among  air-particles,  under 
very  low  velocity,  without  touching  the  union-limit  of  com- 


184  THE    SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

range  and  intensity  if  held  against  a  block  of  suitable 
resonant  wood  of  no  more  surface  area  to  act  on  the  air 
than  the  fork  itself;  while,  if  held  against  a  piece  of  iron 
of  the  same  size,  and  causing  an  equal  augmentation  of 
atmospheric  disturbance  as  will  the  block  of  wood,  this 
added  iron  surface  will  not  add  perceptibly  to  the  vol- 
ume of  tone  caused  by  the  naked  fork,  thus  proving  that 
the  increased  tremulous  action  on  the  air  is  not  the  cause 
of  resonance. 

pressibility,  and  without  the  slightest  condensation  or  pulse  re- 
sulting either  at  the  commencement  of  the  motion  or  at  any 
other  part  of  it,  since  this  same  mobility  would  defy  the  highest 
possible  volocity  in  air,  and  alone  adjust  all  disturbances  but 
for  the  mere  contingency  of  the  presence  of  the  correlated  prop- 
erty of  compressibility!  When  mobility  alone,  in  an  incom- 
pressible fluid,  would  be  all-sufficient  to  restore  any  possible 
displacement  without  a  condensation,  as  you  now  find  yourself 
forced  to  admit,  have  you  any  logical  right  to  deny  our  velocity- 
limit  in  air,  up  to  which  mobility  alone  suffices  for  restoring 
equilibrium  without  calling  to  its  aid  the  other  property  of  com- 
pressibility ? 

Let  me,  however,  before  leaving  this  revolutionary  point, 
tighten  up  the  cords  a  little  about  the  neck  of  the  now  already 
strangled  theory  of  "  condensations  and  rarefactions"  as  consti- 
tuting sound,  by  asking  a  few  questions:  Would  you  pretend  to 
believe  that  a  fish  now  moves  its  fins  any  easier  owing  to  the 
present  inappreciable  fraction  of  compressibility  remaining  in 
water  ?  Do  you  seriously  believe  that  a  tadpole  swims  by  actu- 
ally compressing  the  water  and  by  sending  off  condensations 
and  rarefactions  as  it  waggles  its  tail?  Or  do  you  take  the 
common-sense  view,  as  I  have  just  presented  it,  that  the  mo- 
bility alone  of  this  almost  incompressible  fluid  is  all-sufficient 
for  the  needs  of  the  tadpole  in  its  displacing  operations  ?  But 
finally — I  put  the  question  in  all  candor:  Suppose  the  remainder 
of  the  water's  small  fraction  of  compressibility  were  removed, 
would  not  a  fish  displace  the  water  with  its  fins  just  as  easily  as 
it  does  now  ?  and  would  it  not  make  its  usual  headway  by  using 
the  mobility  of  the  water  alone  for  displacement,  just  as  at 
present? — Dr.  Hall,  in  Microcosm,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  313;  written  at 
request  of  Dr.  Henry  A.  Mott,  in  reply  to  one  of  his  scientific 
correspondents. 


THE  NATURE  AND  PHENOMENA  OF  SOUND.  185 

Q.  32.  Is  there  any  difference  in  the  velocity  of  sounds 
of  different  pitch  or  different  intensity? 

A.  No;  the  velocity  of  sound  is  the  same  in  a  given 
medium,  whether  the  sounds  be  soft  or  loud,  high  or  low, 
simple  or  complex.  The  velocity.of  all  sounds  in  air  is 
about  1120  feet  in  a  second,  at  the  temperature  of  60  deg. 
F.  If  colder,  a  rearrangement  of  the  air-particles  takes 
place  under  the  action  of  cohesive  force,  causing  sound 
to  travel  slower.  This  fact  of  the  uniform  velocity  of  all 
sounds  in  air  at  a  given  temperature  is  verified  by  listen- 
ing to  the  playing  of  a  band  of  music  at  a  distance,  all 
che  sounds,  however  varying  in  intensity  and  pitch, 
reaching  the  observer  in  perfect  time. 

Q.  33.  What  causes  all  sounds  to  travel  at  a  given  ve- 
locity in  a  given  body? 

A.  This  natural  law  of  sound-conduction  in  different 
bodies,  like  the  law  of  resonance  or  sound-augmentation, 
is  not  entirely  known  at  present,  any  more  than  it  is 
known  on  just  what  ]aw  or  principle  electricity  travels 
with  greater  facility  through  some  substances  than 
through  others,  and  will  not  even  travel  at  all,  perceptibly, 
through  some  bodies — as,  for  instance,  glass.  The  most 
rational  solution  of  these  differences  is  given  in  the  cor- 
relation of  the  physical  forces.  The  substantial  force  of 
cohesion,  which  originally  arranged  and  now  holds  the 
particles  of  all  bodies  together,  co-operates  with  the  other 
physical  forces  such  as  sound,  light,  heat,  electricity,  etc., 
in  their  passage  through  material  bodies,  thus  permit- 
ting their  passage  with  greater  or  less  freedom,  or  refus- 
ing their  passage  altogether. 

Q.  34.  Has  not  the  relation  of  density  and  elasticity 
something  to  do  with  this  rate  of  sound-velocity  through 
different  bodies? 

A.  No;  since  this  old  formula  of  the  ratio  of  sound- 
travel  is  contradicted  in  almost  every  separate  substance 
tested.  Lead,  for  example,  one  of  the  most  inelastic,  as 


186  THE  SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

well  as  one  of  the  densest  of  bodies,  conveys  sound  many 
times  faster  than  does  air,  one  of  the  least  dense,  and  one 
of  the  most  elastic  of  all  known  bodies. 

Q.  35.  But  has  not  the  relation  of  density  to  elasticity 
in  air  been  proved  exactly  to  correspond  to  the  observed 
velocity  of  sound  at  different  temperatures? 

A.  No,  but  right  the  reverse.  Sir  Isaac  Newton, 
who  formulated  this  law  of  the  relation  of  density  to 
elasticity  in  air  and  other  bodies,  a?  the  basis  of  the  cur- 
rent theory  of  sound-velocity,  found  that  the  observed 
velocity  of  sound  in  air  exceeded  such  formula  by  174 
feet  a  second,  or  nearly  one-sixth  of  the  velocity,  thus 
himself  breaking  down  the  wave-theory  of  sound  by  the 
very  law  upon  which  it  was  based.  But  not  supposing 
any  other  theory  of  sound  possible  than  that  of  wave- 
motion,  or  of  the  condensations  and  rarefactions  of  the 
air,  Newton  was  at  a  total  loss  to  explain  this  apparently 
fatal  discrepancy  between  the  formulated  theory  and 
actual  observation. 

Q.  36.  Has  there  been  no  explanation  of  this  dis- 
crepancy since  Newton's  time  by  vvhich  to  make  this 
theory  of  sound- velocity  in  air  conform  to  observation? 

A.  Yes;  there  has  been  a  hypothesis  suggested  by 
Laplace,  and  elaborately  illustrated  by  Prof.  Tyudall, 
that  the  condensations  and  rarefactions  of  the  air,  sup- 
posed to  constitute  sound,  alternately  generate  heat  and 
cold  by  squeezing  the  particles  of  air  together  and  by 
which  the  elasticity  of  the  air  is  augmented  sufficiently 
to  increase  the  velocity  of  sound  one-sixth  or  174  feet  a 
second.  In  other  words  that  the  sound  itself,  in  passing 
through  the  air,  so  changes  the  relation  of  its  density  to 
its  elasticity,  by  the  alternate  condensations  and  rarefac- 
tions of  the  sound-waves  themselves,  as  to  make  up  this 
discrepancy  found  by  Newton  a  hypothesis  which  no 
scientiest  since  the  time  of  Laplace  lias  questioned. 


THE  NATURE  AND  PHENOMENA  OF  SOUND.  187 

Q.  37.  Is  it  really  possible  that  this  explanation  or 
solution,  as  invented  by  Laplace,  is  now  adopted  by 
the  colleges  and  universities  of  the  world  as  an  essential 
part  of  the  wave-theory  of  sound? 

A.  Undoubtedly.  Scientists  could  conceive  no  other 
theory  of  sound,  save  that  of  air-waves,  and  although  the 
theory  itself  was  fairly  broken  down  by  Newton,  they 
clung  to  it  as  better  than  no  theory  at  all,  and  hence  ac- 
cepted the  hypothesis  of  Laplace,  weak  as  it  was,  which 
is  now  set  forth  in  our  text- books,  and  is  universally 
taught  in  our  colleges  and  universities  as  an  essential 
part  of  the  wave-theory  of  sound,  since  to  abandon  this 
solution  of  Laplace  would  be  to  abandon  the  theory  itself. 

Q.  38.  What  evidence  is  there  that  sound  itself  can- 
not thus  generate  heat,  and  augment  the  elasticity  of  the 
air  as  Laplace  supposes,  sufficiently  to  add  174  feet  a 
second  to  sound-velocity? 

A.  Such  evidence  exists  in  the  .very  nature  of  the 
mechanical  operation  producing  sound  according  to  the 
wave-theory.  No  compression  of  the  air  can  be  produced 
at  a  distance  from  the  sounding  body,  by  which  such 
sensible  heat  can  be  generated  as  to  add  this  large  per 
cent  of  velocity  (one  sixth)  to  the  sound  itself,  unless 
that  compressing  energy  be  actually  exerted  mechanically 
by  the  vibrating  instrument  itself.  This  would  seem  to 
be  a  mechanical  truism,  requiring  no  proof.  Now  to  in- 
crease the  elasticity  of  the  air  one  sixth  throughout  the 
known  range  of  sound,  by  the  added  heat  thus  caused  by 
mechanical  pressure,  must  require  an  enormous  squeezing 
force  to  be  exerted  by  these  sound-waves  as  they  travel,  all 
of  which  mechanical  force  must  be  originally  exerted  by 
the  vibratory  motion  of  the  sounding  instrument  itself  at 
the  origin  of  this  system  of  condensation  and  rarefac- 
tion. But  the  worst  feature  of  this  supposed  generation 
of  heat  by  atmospheric  condensations,  is  the  fact  that  it 
was  shown  by  the  new  law  discovered  by  Dr.  Hall,  that 


188  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

no  appreciable  heat  is  generated  by  the  compression  of 
air,  the  intensified  heat  observed  in  suddenly  compressed 
air,  being  almost  solely  the  heat  which  was  in  the  air  be- 
fore compression  began,  such  observed  heat  being  merely 
the  original  heat  concentrated  to  a  smaller  space.* 

Q.  39.  Can  any  special  example  be  furnished  in  which 
such  mechanical  result  as  supposed  by  Laplace  would  be 
impossible,  even  if  heat  is  generated  by  compression? 

A.  Yes;  take  the  locust  for  example,  which  weighs 
but  a  few  grains  and  can  exert  but  a  correspondingly 
minute  mechanical  force  upon  the  air,  yet  whose  sound 
can  be  heard  more  than  a  mile  in  all  directions,  thus 
filling  four  cubic  miles  of  air  with  these  supposed  con- 
densations and  rarefactions.  If  the  view  of  Laplace  be 
correct,  this  enormous  mass  of  air  must  be  so  compressed 
and  rarefied  by  the  physical  energy  exerted  by  this  trifling 
insect  alone,  as  to  add  one  sixth  to  the  elasticity  of  the 
air,  and  thus  augment  the  velocity  of  the  insect's  sound, 
174  feet  a  second'. 

Q.  40.  Has  any  high  authority  in  this  department  of 
physics  ever  calculated  the  real  mechanical  energy  which 
is  exerted  in  the  compression  of  a  sound-wave  by  which 
such  a  requisite  amount  of  heat  and  electricity  can  be 
added  to  the  air  as  required  by  the  solution  of  Laplace? 

A.  Yes;  Prof.  Alfred  M.  Mayer,  of  the  Stevens 
Institute,  Hoboken,  N.  J,,  the  highest  authority  on  the 
subject  in  the  United  States,  in  his  article  on  sound  in 
"Appleton's  New  American  Encyclopedia,"  says: 

"  This  compressson  gives  for  the  comprossed  half  of 
the  wave  an  increase  of  l-679th  to  the  ordinary  density 
of  the  atmosphere!  " 

Now  as  each  cubic  inch  of  air  in  the  four  cubic  miles 

*  See  the  new  law  of  the  cause  of  heat  in  compressed  air,  as 
first  announced  by  Dr.  Hall,  copied  near  the  close  of  the 
Eighth  Chapter. 


THE  NATURE  AND  PHENOMENA  OP  SOUND.  189 

filled  by  the  insect's  sound  is  either  compressed  or  ex- 
panded 1-6 79th  more  than  the  ordinary  air  (and  it  re- 
quires the  same  mechanical  energy  to  rarefy  as  to  con- 
dense, at  least  up  to  fifteen  pounds  rarefaction),  it  follows 
that  this  insect  must  exert  a  mechanical  compressing  and 
expanding  energy  of  more  than  5,000,000,000  tons  on 
this  mass  of  air,  in  order  to  change  it  1-679  from  its 
normal  density,  and  thus  make  the  sound  of  the  locust 
fit  the  formula  of  Laplace.  Any  one  can  verify  our  fig- 
ures by  a  little  effort.* 

*  This  want  of  scientific  intelligence,  however,  is  not  a  mere 
mental  lapse  on  the  part  of  our  eminent  physicist,  but  is  charge- 
able chiefly  to  the  inherent  incongruity  of  a  theory  of  science 
false  to  the  very  core.  Daniels,  of  Scotland,  the  author  of  the 
ablest  text-book  on  physics  ever  published,  and  which  has  re- 
cently been  issued,  falls  into  the  same  prodigious  error  in  trying 
to  account  for  the  wonderful  difference  in  loudness  of  various 
sounding  bodies,  which,  as  observation  assures  us,  is  out  of  all 
proportion  to  the  mechanical  effects  they  exert  upon  the  air, 
and  which  so  clearly, conflicts  with  modern  science.  Being 
wholly  unaware  of  the  aid  which  Substantialisni  renders  in 
such  cases,  and  without  one  ray  of  light  from  the  wave-theory 
to  help  him,  he  grasps  wildly  in  the  dark  at  the  only  straw 
in  reach,  namely,  that  the  observed  loudness  of  certain  insects, 
for  example,  is  due  to  their  pitch—that  is,  to  their  great  number 
of  vibrations  in  a  second!  (See  Daniels  on  "Principles  of 
Physics,  p.  368.)  Had  this  high  authority  chanced  to  read  the 
"Problem  of  Human  Life,"  or  several  recent  articles  in  this 
magazine  on  that  question,  he  would  have  been  informed  to  his 
surprise  that  the  famous  locust,  which  can  be  heard  a  mile, 
makes  the  loudest  part  of  its  stridulation  at  the  pitch  of  A 
(440  vibrations,  in  a  second),  at  which  pitch  a  naked  tuning- 
fork,  with  more  than  ten  times  as  much  mechanical  effect 
upon  the  air  as  that  exerted  by  the  insect,  cannot  be  heard  six 
feet  away,  and  consequently  can  produce  but  the  1-80,000,000 
os  much  volume  of  sound  as  does  the  insect  I — See  Microcosm, 
Vol.  IV.,  pp.  318,  381;  Vol.  V.,  p.  38. 

Had  Prof.  Daniels  stopped  to  reflect,  he  would  have  been 
overwhelmed  with  confusion  by  the  simple  fact  that  a  very 
small  tuning-fork  held  in  the  fingers,  or  a  very  fine,  short  wire 


190  THE  SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

Q.  41.     Is  not  the  great  force  of  sound  which  is  ex 
hibited  in  the  destructive  effects  of  magazine  explosions, 
such  as  the  destruction  of  buildings  and  the  breaking  of 
windows    miles   away,    favorable    to   the   hypothesis    of 
Laplace? 

A.  These  destructive  effects  observed  as  the  results  of 
magazine  explosions,  are  not  caused  by  the  sound  at  all, 
as  mistakenly  supposed,  but  result  from  the  instantaneous 

stretched  over  rigid  iron  supports,  when  vibrating  four  thou- 
sand times  in  a  second,  can  be  heard  no  farther  away  than 
when  vibrating  one-fiftieth  as  often,  or  only  eighty  times  a 
second  !  Indeed,  the  facts  in  the  cas.e  are  directly  the  reverse 
of  what  Prof.  Daniels  sets  forth,  since  the  tuning-fork  of  very 
high  pitch  cannot  be  heard  nearly  as  far  as  one  of  a  vastly  less 
number  of  vibrations!  How  neatly  would  this  simple  little  fact 
have  wiped  out  his  i4  insect"  illustration  of  the  supposed  cause 
of  the  marvelous  loudness  of  such  sounds  based  on  their  sup- 
posed pitch!  Yet  that  famed  authority  was  not  capable  of 
evolving  so  simple  an  overturn  to  his  fallacious  explanation. 

His  oversight,  however,  was  manifestly  due  to  his  theory,  and 
not  to  his  intellect.  He  was  prevented  by  the  misleading  nature 
of  that  theory  from  grasping  the  essential  LAW  of  physical  sci- 
ence: that  sound,  instead  of  being  the  mechanical  effect  pro- 
duced upon  the  air  by  the  vibrating  instrument,  and  conveyed 
through  it  in  pulses  or  atmospheric  waves,  is  a  real  substantial, 
but  immaterial  force,  and  depends  for  its  intensity  or  quantity 
upon  the  sonorous  character  of  the  sounding  instrument  itself 
vastly  more  than  upon  its  mechanical  motion,  just  as  the  amount 
of  substantial  electricity  issued  from  a  dynamo  machine  depends 
chiefly  upon  the  electrical  quality  of  the  magnetic  apparatus, 
and  secondarily  upon  the  mechanical  rotation  given  it. 

This  important  law  we  have  given  in  substance  in  the  differ- 
ent editorials  to  which  we  referred  a  moment  ago,  but  we  have 
not  before  emphasized  it  as  we  now  do,  as  an  impregnable  law 
of  science,  upon  which  the  substantial  character  of  sound  as 
one  of  the  forces  of  Nature  may  alone  rely  without  the  fear  of 
successful  assault.  It  stands,  as  a  new  and  overwhelming  dis- 
covery, in  the  same  relation  to  sound  that  the  law  announced 
last  month  (page  160)  occupies  in  relation  to  the  substantial  nat- 
ure of  heat,  and  these  two  laws  should  be  placed  side  by  side 
in  the  ultimate  formula  of  the  Substantial  Philosophy. 


THE  NATURE  AND  PHENOMENA  OF  SOUND.       191 

generation  of  an  enormous  quantity  of  powder-gas,  which, 
by  its  expansive  force,  drives  the  air  away  on  all  sides  in 
a  condensed  wave,  and  which  produces  all  the  destruction 
witnessed.  This  addition  of  gas  and  this  condensation  of 
the  surrounding  air  thereby,  occurring  as  they  frequently 
do  to  distant  observers  simultaneously  with  the  sound- 
report,  have  been  mistaken  by  physioists  for  the  sound 
itself,  and  hence  the  most  learned  investigators,  includ- 
ing such  men  as  Profs.  Tyndall,  Mayer  and  Helmholtz, 

We  thus  begin  to  realize  the  revolutionary  value  of  the  fact  so 
frequently  reiterated  in  these  pages  that  the  locust  with  one-tenth 
as  much  vibratory  action  on  the  air  as  that  produced  by  a  tun- 
ing-fork of  the  same  pitch,  can  be  heard  880  times  farther  away, 
while  it  actually  generates  80,000,000  times  as  much  sound! 
This  beautiful  revelation  of  science,  which  has  been  hidden 
from  the  eyes  of  the  world  through  ages  past,  remained  for  the 
Substantial  Philosophy  to  unfold.  No  better  proof  of  the  far- 
reaching  value  of  Substantialism  can  be  required  than  the 
marked  contrast  thus  pointed  out  between  the  best  outgivings 
of  modern  science  and  the  new  departures  in  the  realm  of 
physics  here  unfolded. 

In  the  light  of  such  discoveries  (and  this  is  but  one  in  a  score 
equally  important  recently  announced  in  the  Microcosm),  how 
invincibly  must  the  Substantial  Philosophy  appeal  to  the  intelli- 
gence of  mankind  in  its  mighty  sweep  through  the  wilder- 
ing  mazes  and  mysteries  of  physical  science!  Substantialism 
sees  no  more  difficulty  in  solving  the  seeming  inexplicable  prob- 
lem of  the  vastly  varying  intensities  of  different  sounds,  with- 
out any  reference  to  atmospheric  disturbance,  against  which 
Daniels,  Mayer,  Tyndall,  and  Helmholtz  stagger  and  turn  pale, 
than  it  originally  saw  in  correctly  explaining  the  blowing  out 
of  a  candle  by  the  clapping  of  two  books  at  one  end  of  a  long 
tin  tube,  or  in  solving  the  mystery  of  the  breaking  of  windows 
by  a  "sound-pulse"  miles  away  from  a  magazine  explosion, 
upon  which  Prof.  Tyndall  found  himself  and  his  theory  totally 
at  sea.  Had  the  great  physicists  we  are  noticing  possessed  the 
magnanimity  and  fairness  which  should  characterize  all  true 
scientific  investigators,  they  would  long  since  have  cheerfully 
accepted  the  aid  in  their  perplexing  physical  researches  which 
the  Substantial  Philosophy  alone  can  give. — Dr.  Hall's  reply  to 
Prof.  Mayer,  Microcosm,  Vol.  V.,  page  231. 


192  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

have  taught  that  it  was  the  noise  or  sound-wave  which 
caused  the  observed  destructive  effects  near  exploding 
magazines.  Whereas  the  sound-report  of  such  explosion 
per  se  would  not  stir  the  feather  of  a  bird,  except  by 
sympathetic  vibration,  which  exerts  no  appreciable  me- 
chanical force. 

Q.  42.  Is  thefe  any  direct  proof  that  sound  itself  has 
nothing  to  do  with  these  destructive  effects,  and  that  all 
scientific  writers  on  acoustics  have  heretofore  been  mis- 
taken? 

A.  Yes;  there  is  the  direct  proof  that  the  most  in- 
tense sound-report  which  ever  addressed  human  ears — as 
in  the  case  of  a  crash  of  thunder  right  in  the  building 
where  the  bolt  strikes,  produces  no  destructive  effect 
whatever,  not  a  pane  of  glass  being  cracked  or  disturbed, 
except  in  the  very  path  of  the  electric  bolt  in  reaching 
the  earth.  The  reason  for  this  is  plain,  namely,  that  this 
thunder-peal  is  unaccompanied  by  any  addition  of  gas  by 
which  a  condensed  air-wave  is  generated  and  sent  forth 
on  its  destructive  errand. 

Q.  43.  Why  has  not  this  apparently  self-evident  solu- 
tion of  the  problem  in  question  been  given  by  former 
physicists? 

A.  Because  the  wave-theory,  which  teaches  that  sound 
consists  of  condensations  and  rarefactions  of  the  air,  had 
a  blinding  and  misleading  effect  on  the  minds  of  its  ad- 
herents, causing  them,  without  due  reflection,  to  jump 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  manifest  condensation  observed 
at  a  magazine  explosion,  by  which  windows  are  crushed 
miles  away,  must  be  that  of  the  sound  itself,  which  oc- 
curs at  the  same  time.  Having  accepted  an  impossible 
theory  of  science,  they  were  naturally  led  to  distort  irrel- 
evant phenomena  in  its  favor. 

Q.  44.  Is  there  any  way  of  proving  that  the  sound- 
report  and  the  condensed  wave  of  air  at  an  explosion  of 
powder,  are  two  separate  and  distinct  phenomena? 


THE  NATURE   AND   PHENOMENA  OF  SOUND.  193 

A.  Yes,  by  a  plan  originally  suggested  in  the  "Prob- 
lem of  Human  Life/'  by  its  author,  to  arrange  and  cause 
an  explosion  of  powder  to  occur  at  a  definite  instant,  and 
then  to  time  the  separate  arrivals  of  the  sound-report  and 
of  the  compressed  wave,  at  stations  fixed  at  different  dis- 
tances away,  tested  and  recorded  by  suitable  instruments. 
It  was  predicted,  and  will  no  doubt  be  verified  by  experi- 
ment, that  at  or  near  the  start,  in  case  of  a  heavy  ex- 
plosion, the  compressed  wave,  or  the  atmospheric  concus- 
sion, will  vastly  outstrip  the  sound,  while  at  a  greater  dis- 
tance they  will  arrive  simultaneously,  but  at  a  still  greater 
distance,  that  the  sound  will  pass  and  outstrip  the  lag- 
ging concussive  shock  by  some  seconds.  The  reason 
given  for  this  probability  is,  that  sound  travels  at  a  uni- 
form rate  of  velocity,  by  its  law  of  conduction,  through- 
out its  entire  range,  while  it  is  equally  evident  that  the 
condensed  air-wave,  caused  by  the  instantaneous  addition 
of  gas,  must  travel  much  faster  at  the  start  of  its  journey 
than  after  it  has  progressed  some  distance,  or  after  it  has 
become  weakened  in  force  by  increasing  the  quantity  of 
air  under  compression,  according  to  the  well-known  law 
of  the  square  of  the  distance  from  the  explosion. 

Q.  45.  Will  sound-force,  per  se,  produce  any  sensible 
effect  in  disturbing  or  displacing  material  bodies? 

A.  Yes,  it  will,  as  recently  hinted,  move  a  body 
unisonantly  into  sympathetic  vibration.  Such  body, 
however,  must  be  capable,  firstly,  of  itself  producing 
sound,  and  secondly,  must  be  tuned  in  unison  with  the 
actuating  instrument  in  order  to  be  stirred  sympathetic- 
ally. The  substantial  sound-force,  issuing  from  the 
sounding  instrument  in  sonorous  pulses  or  jets  of  force 
corresponding  to  its  vibrational  number,  strikes  the 
unison  instrument,  which  being  tuned  to  the  same  pitch, 
stands  ready  to  act  sympathetically  and  respond  by  ab- 
sorbing the  force,  so  to  speak,  thus  reproducing  the  same 
tone,  though  with  much  less  intensity.  There  is  nothing 


194  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

more  surprising  in  this  sympathetic  action  of  a  suitable 
instrument  by  substantial  sound-force,  than  in  the  action 
of  substantial  magnetism,  which  draws  a  piece  of  metal 
which  happens  to  be  in  sympathy  with  it,  such  as  iron, 
for  example,  while  producing  no  physical  effect  whatever 
upon  unsympathetic  metals,  such  as  gold,  silver,  cop- 
per, etc. 

Q.  46.  Would  not  sound  if  constituted  of  air-waves, 
also  explain  sympathetic  vibration  in  a  distant  unison  in- 
strument, by  the  continuous  dashing  of  such  waves 
against  it  synchronously  with  its  own  vibrational  number, 
until  it  finally  gets  into  motion? 

A.  No;  in  the  first  place  it  would  be  physically  and 
mechanically  impossible  for  a  vibrating  tuning-fork,  for 
example,  to  send'  off  air-waves  or  atmospheric  pulses  180 
feet,  and  thus  put  another  fork  into  motion  by  their 
material  contact  with  the  prongs.  Yet  one  fork,  heavily 
bowed,  has  been  known  to  start  another  that  distance 
apart,  both  being  in  sympathetic  unison  and  mounted  on 
their  resonant  cases  so  as  to  have  their  sympathies  aug- 
mented by  the  sonorous  or  resonant  quality  of  these 
wooden  cases. 

Q.  47.  What  experiment,  if  any,  will  tend  to  confirm 
this  view,  namely,  that  it  is  the  substantial  sound-force 
which  affects  and  starts  the  distant  forks  into  sym- 
pathetic action,  and  not  the  condensations  and  rarefac- 
tions of  the  air,  as  the  wave-theory  teaches? 

A.  Remove  the  two  forks  from  these  resonant  cases 
of  woody  and  place  them  on  iron  cases  of  the  same  size, 
which  will  vibrate  and  disturb  the  air  with  even  more 
mechanical  force  than  will  the  wooden  cases,  though 
with  but  a  small  fraction  of  the  volume  of  sound;  and 
however  heavily  the  actuating  fork  may  be  bowed  and 
set  into  vibration,  no  sympathetic  effect  will  be  produced 
on  the  other  fork,  even  if  only  one-tenth  that  distance  or 
eighteen  feet  away,  notwithstanding  the  same  or  even 


THE  NATURE  AND   PHENOMENA   OF  SOUND.  1Q5 

greater  action  is  thereby  transferred  to  the  air.  The 
reason  for  this  is  plain,  that  the  sympathetic  effect  is 
only  caused  by,  and  proportional  to,  the  sound-force 
which  reaches  the  distant  unbowed  fork,  and  has  nothing 
whatever  to  do  with  the  supposed  air-waves  sent  against 
the  distant  fork  or  ita  resonant  case.* 

Q.  48.  How  about  the  law  of  sound-interference,  by 
which  two  systems  of  sound-waves  may  travel  in  such 
relation  to  each  other,  as  to  extinguish  both  sounds  and 
thus  cause  total  silence? 

A.  There  is  no  truth  in  that  law,  though  it  has  al- 
ways been  taught  as  an  essential  part  of  the  wave-theory, 
and  should  be  true  if  there  is  any  truth  in  that  theory. 
It  was  naturally  inferred,  since  sound  consisted,  as  sup- 
posed, of  atmospheric  undulations,  that  the  same  inter- 

*  As  a  proof  that  the  sympathetic  vibration  of  a  unison  body 
is  not  caused  by  the  periodic  impulses  imparted  to  it  through 
air- waves  sent  off  from  the  actuating  string  or  fork,  I  refer  the 
reader  to  the  unanswerable  fact  that  a  body  may  vibrate  or  oscil- 
late ever  so  nearly  to  another  body  tuned  in  perfect  synchro- 
nism with  its  own  swing,  and  ever  so  rapidly,  but  so  long  as  no 
audible  tone  is  produced  by  these  vibrations  no  motion  what- 
ever will  be  communicated  to  the  unison  neighbor,  though  it 
necessarily  and  continuously  receives  the  synchronous  air- waves 
driven  against  it  by  the  actuating  body.  I  have  carefully  tested 
this  in  the  following  manner:  I  arranged  two  pendulum-balls, 
with  very  short  rods  of  equal  length,  to  cause  rapid  swings  as 
closely  together  as  possible  without  touching,  being  careful  that 
their  supports  had  no  immediate  connection  (except  the  air)  by 
which  any  impulse  might  be  communicated  from  the  moving 
ball  to  the  one  at  rest.  Though  their  swings  were  in  perfect 
synchronism,  moving  ivith  twice  the  aggregate  velocity  of  a  tun- 
ing-fork's prongs,  and  although  they  were  so  near  together  that 
the  air-disturbances  caused  by  the  moving  pendulum  must  neces- 
sarily strike  the  other  periodically,  or  as  nearly  so  as  it  is  possi- 
ble for  air-waves  to  travel,  yet  no  motion  whatever  was  com- 
municated to  the  one  at  rest,  for  the  best  of  all  possible  reasons 
— there  was  no  tone  produced. 

This  is  also  illustrated  in  the  case  of  a  sonometer-string,  if 


196  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

ference  should  necessarily  take  place  in  sound-waves,  as 
in  the  case  of  water-waves  where  undulations  do  actually 
exist.  In  water-waves  it  is  well  known,  that  if  two 
equal  systems  of  waves  so  travel  together  that  the  crests 
of  one  system  shall  fall  into  the  troughs  or  sinuses  of  the 
other  system,  the  two  will  substantially  neutralize  each 
other,  and  cause  a  quiescence  of  the  water.  Now  if 
sound  in  air  consists  of  waves  of  condensations  and  rare- 
factions, it  is  plain,  if  two  sounds  or  systems  of  sonorous 
air-waves,  of  equal  wave-length  (pitch),  and  of  equal 
degree  of  condensation  and  rarefaction  (intensity), 
should  so  travel  together  that  the  condensations  of  one 
system  shall  fall  into  the  rarefactions  of  the  other  system, 
etc.,  that  quiescence  shotild  result  as  truly  in  air-waves 

taken  from  its  sounding-board  and  stretched  over  isolated  pieces 
of  rigid  iron;  though  it  will  vibrate  when  plucked  just  the  same, 
and  "  carve  "  or  "mold"  the  air  into  waves,  as  Prof.  Tyndall 
expresses  it,  just  to  the  same  extent  exactly  as  when  in  connec- 
tion with  its  sounding-tray,  yet  its  sounds  can  scarcely  be  heard 
by  a  person  standing  near  it,  for  the  want  of  a  resonant  body  to 
augment  its  tone  by  diffusion,  as  will  be  explained  after  a  little. 
A  string  in  this  condition  will  not  start  a  unison  body  into  sym- 
pathetic vibration  even  if  but  a  few  inches  distant,  and  then 
only  in  exact  proportion  to  the  intensity  of  its  sound,  and  not  at 
all  in  proportion  to  the  amplitude  of  the  air- waves  "  molded," 
"  carved,"  and  sent  off  by  its  oscillations,  which  are  exactly  the 
same  whether  such  string  is  connected  with  the  sounding-board 
or  not.  If  the  air-waves  are  really  molded  and  sent  off  by  the 
harp-string,  with  "condensations  and  rarefractions "  traveling 
1120  feet  a  second,  as  so  explicitly  taught  by  Prof.  Tyndall  (see 
extracts  7  and  8,  pp.  78,  79).  and  if  these  air- waves  are  really 
the  cause  of  sympathetic  vibration  in  a  distant  unison  string  or 
fork,  then  pray  tell  us  why  the  sonometer-string  can  cause 
no  response  to  its  unison  neighbor  a  foot  from  it,  though  it 
"carves,"  "molds,"  and  sends  off  the  same  air-waves  it  does 
when  placed  on  its  sounding-board  ?  The  air-wave  hypothesis 
must  therefore  completely  break  down  as  the  solution  of  sym- 
pathetic vibration. — Dr.  Hall,  in  "  Problem  of  Human  Life," 
p.  81. 


THE  NATURE  AND  PHENOMENA  OF  SOUND.       IDT' 

.•is  in  the  case  of  water-waves,  and  that  consequently  the 
sound,  which  consists  only  of  such  atmospheric  disturb- 
ances, should  cease  to  be  heard  by  such  interference. 

Q.  49.  Is  this  the  law  of  interference  as  taught  in  the 
wave-theory  of  sound,  or  as  at  present  taught  in  our 
schools? 

A.  Yes;  this  is  the  law  as  laid  down  in  all  text-books 
on  acoustics,  and  it  is  taught,  or  at  least  was  taught,  as 
settled  scientific  truth  in  e\7ery  college  on  earth,  previous 
to  the  publication  of  the  "  Problem  of  Human  Life/'  a 
few  schools  and  colleges  since  that  time  having  abandoned 
the  wave-theory  for  the  substantial  theory  as  was  an- 
nounced and  maintained  by  Dr.  Hall,  and  as  here,  for 
the  first  time,  put  into  formulated  shape. 

Q.  50.  Does  any  text- book  plainly  teach,  in  accord- 
ance with  this  law,  that  if  two  unison  instruments  were 
sounded  half  a  wave-length  apart,  they  would  neutralize 
or  destroy  each  other's  sound? 

A.  Yes,  in  the  plainest  language  imaginable.  Prof. 
Tyndal's  book  on  sound,  for  example,  lays  it  down  as  an 
experimental  fact,  that  two  unison  forks  so  sounded,  half 
a  wave-length  apart,  will  totally  destroy  each  other's 
sound  by  causing  quiescence  in  the  air,  on  the  same  prin- 
ciple as  quiescence  in  the  case  of  water-waves  is  super- 
induced when  in  a  state  of  interference;  and,  as  it  would 
seem,  lest  the  scientific  student  of  his  book,  or  the 
teacher  should  fail  to  grasp  the  fact,  Prof.  Tyndall  illus- 
trates it  by  a  diagram  of  two  turning-forks  thus  placed, 
first  a  wave-length  apart  (with  dark  and  light  shadings 
of  the  air)  so  as  to  augment  each  other's  sound,  and  then 
a  half  wave-length  apart,  in  which  position,  by  an  even 
or  uniform  tint,  he  graphically  represents  quiescence  of 
the  air  or  absolute  silence. 

Q.  51.  Have  any  counter- experiments  been  actually 
tried  by  which  to  disprove  the  alleged  truth  of  this  law 


19$  ,  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

of  interference  as  illustrated  by  the  sounding  of  unison 
instruments  half  a  wave-length  apart? 

A.  Yes,  repeatedly,  no  effect  whatever  being  observ- 
able in  the  intensity  of  the  sounds  when  the  two  instru- 
ments are  placed  and  sounded  variously,  first  in  support- 
ing relation,  or  a  whole  wave-length  apart,  and  then  in  a 
supposed  interfering  relation,  or  half  a  wave-length 
apart.  The  student  of  science  can  instantly  prove  (by 
having  two  assistants  sound  unison  instruments  in  all  pos- 
sible relations  as  to  distance  apart,  and  then  listening  in 
all  directions  from  them)  that  this  fundamental  law  of 
interference,  on  which  the  wave- theory  is  based,  is  with- 
out a  shadow  of  foundation  in  fact. 

Q.  52.  Are  there  no  experiments  or  phenomena  re- 
ferred to  by  scientists  by  which  to  prove  the  truth  of  this 
supposed  law? 

A.  Yes,  several;  but  each  one  of  which  is  an  entire 
misapprehension  of  the  phenomena  observed  and  referred 
to  as  proofs.  Take  the  one  instance  most  commonly  re- 
ferred to,  namely,  the  fact  that  the  two  prongs  of  a  tun- 
ing-fork will  so  interfere  that  if  held  cornerwise  close  to 
the  ear,  there  will  be  no  sound  perceived.  But  so  far 
from  this  having  anything  to  do  with  the  supposed  law 
of  interference  in  the  two  supposed  systems  of  sound- 
waves sent  off  from  the  two  prongs  of  the  fork,  the  essen- 
tial theoretic  half  wave-length,  absolutely  necessary  to 
this  law,  has  to  be  entirely  ignored,  since  the  two  prongs 
&re  within  an  eighth  or  a  quarter  of  an  inch  of  each  other; 
whereas  in  an  A-fork  the  half  wave-length  should  be  fif- 
teen and  one-quarter  inches,  or  in  other  words  these 
prongs,  in  order  that  their  unison- waves  should  interfere, 
should  be  fifteen  and  one-quarter  inches  apart.  Then 
instead  of  only  interfering  cornerwise,  they  should  pro- 
duce silence  in  all  directions,  especially  in  the  direction 
of  the  swing  of  the  two  prongs.  As  this  silence  is  thus 
shown  not  to  be  interference  of  atmospheric  undulations 


THE  NATURE  AND   PHENOMENA  OF  SOUND.  199 

at  all,  according  to  the  wave-theory,  it  remains  what  it 
manifestly  is,  a  mere  vacancy  or  absence  of  sound-force  in 
the  direction  of  these  prong-corners,  caused  by  the  pe- 
culiar manner  in  which  a  tuning-fork  liberates  its  sound 
from  the  force-element  of  Nature. 

Q.  53.  Is  not  the  interference  of  the  double-siren,  as 
shown  by  the  experiments  of  Profs.  Tyndall  and  Helm- 
holtz,  a  confirmation  of  the  fauth  of  this  law  of  half-wave- 
length interference? 

A.  There  is  no  interference  at  all  produced  in  the 
case  of  the  double-siren,  nor  anything  that  can  be  con- 
strued into  it,  according  to  the  plain  admissions  of 
both  those  eminent  physicists.  When  the  two  perforated 
disks  of  the  siren  (each  having  twelve  apertures)  were  ar- 
ranged in  such  relation  to  each  other  chat  their  respect- 
ive series  of  puffs  should  alternate,  or  in  other  words, 
when  the  twelve  puffs  of  one  disk  were  adjusted  to  occur 
in  the  spaces  or  between  the  puffs  of  the  other,  it  is  plain 
that  this  would  make  twenty-four  puffs,  instead  of 
twelve,  at  each  turn  of  the  spindle  to  which  the  disks 
were  secured;  and  as  the  two  sirens  of  twelve  puffs  each, 
when  occurring  simultaneously,  produced  a  loud  funda- 
mental tone,  it  is  manifest  to  any  acoustician  that  when 
placed  alternately,  and  producing  twenty-four  separate 
puffs  to  each  rotation,  they  would  produce  an  exact  octave 
of  this  fundamental  tone,  but  greatly  weakened  in  its  in- 
tensity. Now,  strange  as  it  may  seem,  this  is  exactly 
what  both  Prof.  Tyndall  and  Prof.  Helmholtz  heard,  and 
they  confessed  it  to  be  the  real  result,  even  after  claiming 
the  double-siren  as  a  clear  proof  of  the  law  of  inter- 
ference, and  that  the  two  disks  when  so  adjusted  as  to 
puff  alternately  would  interfere  and  thus  produce  the  ab- 
solute extinction  of  both  sirens.  Thus  is  it  shown  in  like 
manner  to  turn  out  with  every  experiment  which  has 
ever  been  claimed  by  advocates  of  the  wave-theory  to 
favor  this  law.  The  facts  when  analyzed  do  not  show  in- 


200  THE   SUBSTANTIAL    PHILOSOPHY. 

terference  at  all;  and  yet  the  theory  has  been  held  and 
taught  and  explained  for  centuries  in  this  way,  just  he- 
cause  no  other  theory  could  be  imagined  as  accounting 
for  the  facts,  phenomena,  and  appearances  of  sound. 

Q.  54.  Does  not  the  decrease  of  sound -intensity  or 
loudness  as  the  square  of  the  distance  from  the  center  of 
motion,  go  to  favor  the  wave-theory? 

A.  Even  if  it  were  a  fact  that  sound-intensity  (in  the 
sense  of  loudness),  does  decrease  as  the  square  of  the  dis- 
tance from  its  source,  which  is  not  the  case,  it  does  not 
oppose  the  theory  that  sound  is  a  substantial  force,  radia- 
ting from  a  center  like  light  and  heat,  and  that  it  must 
become  less  in  quantity  according  to  this  same  law. 
Surely  if  the  substantial  atmosphere  becomes  less  in 
quantity  as  the  square  of  the  distance  from  the  center, 
substantial  sound,  light,  and  heat,  ought  to  do  the  same 
thing. 

Q.  55.  But  if  the  quantity  of  substantial  sound-force 
actually  does  become  less  or  decrease  as  the  square  of  the 
distance  from  the  center,  the  same  as  the  quantity  of  air, 
how  is  it  that  the  intensity  or  loudness  of  sound  does  not 
decrease  by  the  same  law? 

A.  The  actual  quantity  of  sound  and  the  actual  loud- 
ness  of  sound  have  no  necessary  relation  to  each  other. 
The  quantity  of  sound  relates  to  the  external  force  itself, 
whether  it  is  heard  or  not,  while  the  intensity  of  sound, 
in  the  sense  of  loudness,  relates  to  the  sensation  produced 
in  the  animal  consciousness.  A  sound  may  be  just  as 
loud  to  our  conscious  sensation  as  another  sound  of  many 
times  its  absolute  quantity  of  sonorous  force,  simply  be- 
cause our  auditory  capacity  is  not  capable  of  receiving 
and  perceiving,  as  loudness,  more  than  a  certain  limited 
quantity  of  this  force.  It  is  plain,  if  sounds  too  low  or 
too  high  for  our  capacity  cannot  be  perceived,  that 
sounds  too  little,  or  overplus  sounds  too  much,  for  our 
capacity  would  be  of  no  effect  on  our  sensation. 


THE  NATURE  AND  PHENOMENA  OF  SOUND.       201 

Q.  56.  What  does  this  teach  as  to  the  decrease  of 
sound  as  the  square  of  the  distance? 

A.  It  teaches,  that  while  sound  itself,  as  a  substantial 
physical  force,  must  decrease  as  the  square  of  the  distance 
from  the  center,  like  all  other  radiating  forces,  its  loudness 
or  intensity  in  our  sensations  depends  on  the  nature  of  the 
sound  itself,  and  its  external  intensity  or  absolute  quan- 
tity at  the  source.  A  very  powerful  sound  might  thus  be 
just  as  loud  to  a  sensitive  ear  fifty  feet  away  as  ten  feet 
away  from  its  source;  whereas  there  are  twenty-five  times 
as  much  sound  in  a  cubic  foot  of  air  ten  feet  from  such 
source  of  sound  as  at  fifty  feet  away.  The  reason  why 
the  loudness  might  be  the  same  in  our  sensations  in  the 
one  case  as  in  the  other  is,  that  our  auditory  apparatus 
can  utilize  no  more  than  its  full  capacity,  just  as  a  pinch 
of  sugar  scattered  over  the  gustatory  membrane  will 
taste  as  sweet  as  a  whole  mouthful. 

Q.  57.  Has  there  been  any  experiment  to  show  that 
the  loudness  of  sound  does  not  decrease  according  to  this 
law  of  squared  distance  inverse? 

A.  Yes;  Capt.  R.  Kelso  Carter,  Professor  of  Mathe- 
matics in  the  Pennsylvania  Military  Institute  at  Chester, 
in  the  summer  of  1881,  at  the  suggestion  of  Dr.  Hall, 
instituted  careful  experiments  with  suitable  apparatus 
and  competent  observers,  and  after  repeated  trials  in  an 
open  field,  the  fact  was  abundantly  demonstrated,  that 
with  common  pitch-pipes  the  supposed  law  completely 
broke  down,  and  as  Capt.  Carter  reported: 

"  Of  one  thing  I  am  certain,  that  a  pitch-pipe  blown 
at  one  yard  and  at  ten  yards  does  not  vary  in  loudness 
more  than  one  half." 

According  to  the  law  of  squared  distance  inverse,  the 
one  blown  at  one  yard  should  be  a  hundred  times  as  loud 
as  the  one  blown  at  ten  yards  away. 

Q.  58.     Is  the  timbre,  or  quality  of  sound,  consistent 


202  THE  SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

with  the  doctrine  that  sound  is  a  substantial  force  and 
not  a  mode  of  motion? 

A.  Entirely  so.  The  notion  that  the  overtones  or 
auxiliary  tones  of  a  loud  fundamental  sound  (which  are 
known  to  constitute  the  timbre,  or  quality  of  sound),  con- 
sist of  the  superposition  of  different  sizes  and  forms  of 
air-waves,  is  too  irrational  a  view  ever  to  have  been  ac- 
cepted as  science  but  for  the  fact  that  the  wave-theory  of 
sound  was  looked  upon  as  a  foregone  necessity,  no  other 
theory  being  conceivable  to  the  minds  of  past  or  even 
present  physicists  up  to  the  appearance  of  the  "  Problem 
of  Human  Life." 

Q.  59.  By  what  experiment  is  the  existence  of  these 
over-tones,  which  constitute  the  quality  or  timbre  of 
sound,  determined? 

A.  By  what  is  called  a  resonator,  an  instrument  which 
can  be  tuned  in  unison  with  any  particular  supposed  over- 
tone in  a  given  fundamental  sound,  and  being  in  unison 
with  that  particular  tone,  it  will  augment  it  while  ob- 
scuring all  other  sounds,  thus  enabling  the  listener  to 
hear  it  if  it  is  present.  By  thus  adjusting  the  resonator 
to  every  supposed  or  probable  overtone  in  a  given  funda- 
mental, the  presence  of  all  such  supplementary  sounds 
can  be  detected  and  noted. 

Q.  60.  How  many  such  supplementary  sounds  or  over- 
tones have  been  detected  mixed  up  in  any  one  given 
fundamental  ? 

A.  As  many  as  six  or  eight,  or  even  more  tones  of 
different  intensities  and  rates  of  vibration  or  pitches, 
have  been  plainly  detected  by  a  patient  search  with  a 
nicely  adjusted  resonator;  and  even  several  of  these 
more  prominent  overtones,  such  as  the  octave,  the  fifth, 
the  third  and  the  sixteenth,  have  been  plainly  distin- 
guished in  some  fundamental  tones  by  a  cultivated  ear, 
and  by  a  powerful  act  of  attention,  even  without  the  aid 
of  a  resonator.  But  the  supposition  is  inconceivable  that 


THE  NATURE  AND  PHENOMENA  OF  SOUND.  203 

tliis  number  of  air-waves,  all  of  different  forms,  sizes, 
and  vibrational  rates,  can  be  superimposed  and  occupy 
the  same  space  at  the  same  time,  making  the  same  num- 
ber of  movements  in  the  ear  membrane.  The  reason  for 
this  is,  that  it  is  a  self-evident  and  inflexible  law  of  me- 
chanics, that  no  particle  of  matter  can  occupy  more  than 
one  determinate  position,  have  more  than  one  determinate 
motion,  in  one  determinate  direction,  and  with  one  de- 
terminate velocity,  at  the  same  time.  To  suppose  the 
contrary  is  to  make  a  draft  on  human  credulity  that 
reason  will  not  approve,  since  our  experience  furnishes 
no  analogous  example  in  any  other  department  of  science. 
Yet  if  these  various  sounds,  contained  in  a  single  funda- 
mental tone,  are  caused  by  air-waves,  and  if  our  distinct 
recognition  of  a  hundred  different  sounds  at  one  instant, 
produced  by  an  orchestra  of  as  many  instruments,  de- 
pends on  the  superimposed  motions  of  the  air  leading  to 
the  tympanic  membrane — a  column  no  larger  than  a 
common  lead  pencil — then  it  must  follow  that  the  above 
self-evident  and  inflexible  law  of  mechanics  is  false,  and 
that  these  air-particles,  filling  the  passage  to  the  ear, 
must  be  capable  of  occupying  scores  of  different  positions, 
taking  scores  of  different  directions,  under  scores  of  dif- 
ferent velocities,  all  at  one  and  the  same  time.  This 
stupendous  error  of  science  is  actually  taught  and  in- 
sisted upon  by  every  advocate  of  the  current  theory  of 
acoustics,  though  no  doubt  without  realizing  that  he  is  in 
open  defiance  of  the  physical  laws. 

Q.  61.  Is  there  anything  in  Nature  and  science  that 
would  go  to  support  the  substantial  theory  of  sound-force 
in  the  light  of  this  problem  of  timbre,  as  caused  by  over- 
tones? 

A.  Yes;  this  substantial  view  of  mixed  tones,  by 
which  the  quality  of  a  fundamental  sound  is  produced,  is 
plainly  corroborated  and  easily  shown  by  the  innumerable 
qualities  of  mixed  odor,  which  the  whole  scientific  world 


204  THE    SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

admits  to  be  substantial,  and  in  no  possible  sense  super- 
imposed waves.  An  experienced  perfumer  will  instantly 
detect  by  the  nose  alone,  a  number  of  different  perfumes 
promiscuously  mixed  together  in  the  same  bottle,  nam- 
ing each  separate  ingredient  constituting  the  mass  of 
fragrance,  both  fundamental  and  supplementary,  and  of 
course  there  is  no  such  thing  as  superimposed  air-waves, 
or  odor-waves  of  numerous  vibrational  directions  or  veloci- 
ties to  untangle,  but  simply  an  analysis,  by  means  of  a 
sense-organ  alone,  of  a  combination  of  substantial  entities, 
which  go  to  make  up  this  quality  of  timbre  of  the  odor  in 
question.  And  while  a  human  being  can  thus  analyze  a 
mixture  of  half  a  dozen  of  odorous  ingredients,  and  point 
out  the  presence  of  each,  a  certain  species  of  fox-hound 
can  analyze  and  untangle  a  hundred  mixed  smells,  select- 
ing out  one,  and  following  it  in  spite  of  all  the  confusion 
or  odorous  complications,  which  the  ingenuity  of  man  has 
the  power  to  invent.* 

*  Readers  of  this  surprising  story  of  facts  (the  tracing  of  negro 
convicts  by  southern  hounds),  who  have  previously  been  inclined 
to  doubt  the  basic  principles  of  Substantialism,  can  now  open 
their  eyes  and  see  for  themselves.  If  a  dog  has  the  ability  to 
select  and  isolate  one  single  form  of  odor  from  a  hundred, other 
almost  exactly  similar  forms,  with  these  various  forms  of  smell 
intermingled  in  the  most  confused  and  tangled  manner  possible, 
as  here  shown,  and,  at  the  same  time,  with  odor  a  real  objective 
substance,  as  the  whole  scientific  world  admits,  is  it  not  reason- 
able to  suppose  that  the  well-known  ability  of  a  practiced  ear  to 
select  and  isolate  one  single  tone  from  an  orchestra  of  a  hun- 
dred different  instruments,  must  come  in  like  manner  from  the 
substantial  nature  of  sound  ?  If  not,  then  what  sense  or  mean- 
ing can  there  be  in  the  so-called  analogies  of  Nature? 

The  attempted  reconciliation  with  the  wave-theory  of  this 
single  orchestral  fact  has  cost  many  ponderous  volumes  on 
acoustics,  involving  the  most  abstruse  mathematical  calculation 
and  theorizing.  Lord  Rayleigh,  the  eminent  English  scientist, 
has  produced  a  book  on  sound  of  some  four  or  five  hundred 
pages,  devoted  almost  entirely  to  these  singular  mathematical 


THE  NATURE  AND   PHENOMENA  OF  SOUND.  205 

Q.  62.  As  it  has  been  proved  by  experiment  that 
sound  will  reflect  according  to  the  angle  of  incidence  in 
a  manner  similar  to  light,  does  not  this  constitute  a  proof 
that  sound  consists  of  air-waves? 

A.  No;  it  is  right  the  opposite,  since  there  is  no  such 
thing  as  true  reflection  in  any  kind  of  wave-motion,  ac- 
cording to  this  law  of  the  angle  of  incidence.  Water- 
waves,  striking-  a  perpendicular  wall  at  an  angle,  give  no 
trace  of  true  reflection,  according  to  this  law,  but  fall 
back  and  break  up  in  confusion  among  succeeding  waves, 
thus  instantly  losing  their  identity.  Nothing  can  reflect 
which  has  not  a  substantial  forward  movement.  A  wave 

wave-formulas,  by  which  to  vindicate  the  practical  possibility  of 
the  truth  of  the  current  theory,  and  to  show  how  the  almost  in- 
finite complexity  of  air-motions,  necessary  to  the  hearing  of  so 
many  sounds  at  one  time,  can  result  by  the  intermingling  of 
condensations  and  rarefactions,  and  the  superposition  of  various 
systems  of  air-waves  upon  each  other. 

He  may  have  succeeded  in  representing  all  this  on  paper,  by 
which  to  prove  that  one  little  membrane  called  the  tympanum — 
not  a  third  of  an  inch  in  diameter — shall  take  on  all  these  super- 
imposed forms  of  wave-motion  at  one  time,  and  thus  communi- 
cate them  intelligibly  to  the  brain.  But  the  fatal  difficulty  in 
the  way  of  all  this  complexity  of  mathematical  theorizing  by 
Lord  Rayleigh  can  surely  apply  only  to  the  air,  or,  rather,  to  his 
printed  formulas,  as  it  can  never  be  reproduced  as  motions  in 
the  ear-drum  of  any  living  creature.  This  is  proved  from  the 
fact  that  the  tympanic  membrane  is  not  a  stretched  or  tensioned 
diaphragm  at  all,  but  is  a  loose  or  flaccid  mass  of  sensitive  tissue 
incapable  of  any  sound-vibrations  whatever. 

For  centuries  the  scientific  world  has  labored  under  the  mis- 
apprehension that  the  tympanum  is  a  "  drumskin  "  stretched 
across  the  passage  leading  to  the  inner  ear,  ready  to  respond  by 
sympathy  and  reproduce  all  the  supposed  complex  motions  of 
the  air  as  formulated  by  Lord  Rayleigh's  mathematical  ingenu- 
ity. But  this  notion  concerning  the  ear-drum,  so  long  in  vogue 
is  totally  false,  as  now  proved  by  anatomy,  and  hence  all  this 
laborious  effort,  to  show  mathematically  what  is  possible  as  to 
complex  motion  in  the  air.  turns  out  to  be  a  pitiable  scientific 


206  THE  SUBSTANTIAL    PHILOSOPHY. 

is  only  the  forward  movement  of  the  form  of  the  water's 
disturbance,  and  .not  of  the  water  itself,  the  particles 
constituting  the  wave  having  only  an  oscillatory  motion 
to  and  fro  in  a  direction  at  right  angles  with  the  direc- 
tion of  the  wave  or  swell  itself.  This  is  even  seen  in  a 
field  of  gram,  and  especially  of  flax  in  blossom,  in  which 
true  waves  are  produced  by  wind,  but  in  which  it  is  evi- 
dent no  reflection  at  the  angle  of  incidence  is  possible. 
This  law  of  angular  reflection  is  only  conceivable  in  bodily 
forward  movement,  under  velocity,  of  the  very  substance 
which  is  reflected.  A  discharge  of  rubber  balls  from  a 
gun  against  a  plain  surface,  at  an  angle,  gives  a  correct 

abortion,  since  no  vibrations  are  possible  in  such  a  flabby  piece 
of  tendinous  tissue  as  this  ear-drum. 

In  contrast  with  this  incomprehensible  mathematical  mystifi- 
cation by  Lord  Rayleigh,  how  easy  and  simple  is  it  to  conceive 
of  the  possible  hearing  and  analyzing  of  any  number  of  the  most 
complex  sounds  at  one  time,  on  the  basis  of  the  contact  of  sub- 
stantial sound-force  against  this  delicate  and  sensitive  auditory 
membrane,  especially  in  view  of  the  demonstrable  illustration 
just  given  of  a  hound  snuffing  a  hundred  complex  but  substan- 
tial odors  at  the  same  breath,  and  by  means  of  his  nasal  mem- 
brane alone,  without  any  vibratory  motion  whatever,  isolating 
one  of  these  smells  out  of  the  hundred  and  retaining  it  in  spite 
of  all  the  complications  that  could  be  invented  by  man!  Of 
what  use,  then,  in  the  name  of  all  that  is  reasonable  in  science, 
is  this  complex  superposition  of  air-waves  in  accounting  for 
sound-sensations,  when  in  the  adjoining  sense  next  to  it,  namely, 
that  of  smell,  every  purpose  of  nature  is  served  by  the  substan- 
tial contact  of  odor,  and  that,  too,  amid  a  confusion  of  conflicting 
smells  which  would  make  a  volume  of  Lord  Rayleigh's  worst 
mathematical  superpositions  appear  like  simple  reading? 

But  suppose  odor  to  consist  of  vibratory  motion,  which  cer- 
tainly should  be  the  case  if  it  is  true  of  sound,  and  then  imagine 
that  poor  dog,  before  selecting  the  special  form  of  odor  he  was 
to  follow,  being  obliged  to  figure  out  with  his  nose  over  a  little 
patch  of  dirt  one  of  the  easiest  of  Lord  Rayleigh's  superpositions 
as  applied  to  odoriferous  condensations  and  rarefactions  in  order 
to  determine  which  angle  of  the  parallelogram  to  select  before 
he  could  start  on  the  track  of  the  right  convict!  Then  imagine 


THE  NATURE  AND  PHENOMENA  OF  SOUND.       207 

illustration  of  this  angle  of  incidence  at  which  light  and 
sound  reflect,  each  ball  rebounding  at  the  same  angle  of 
direction  it  had  in  striking  the  plane  surface,  thus  show- 
ing the  true  law  of  all  reflection,  especially  of  both  sound 
and  light  as  substantial  entities  having  an  analogous  for- 
ward and  bodily  motion. 

Q.  03.  Is  this  law  of  substantial  forward  motion  also 
in  harmony  with  the  well  known  method  of  concentrat- 
ing sounds  to  a  focal  point,  as  in  an  ear-trumpet,  and 
other  funnel-shaped  tubes? 

A.  Yes;  the  concentration  of  sound  by  an  ear-trum- 
pet, is  only  a  succession  of  reflections  of  forward-moving 

these  odorous  vibrations  caused  by  the  impacts  of  the  convict's 
shoes  to  have  been  made  an  hour  in  advance  of  the  dog's  start- 
ing— pray  how  could  his  olfactory  membrane  be  made  to  respond 
sympathetically  to  such  vibrations  an  hour  after  their  motions 
had  ceased  to  exist  ? 

Jesting  aside,  why  cannot  Lord  Rayleigh  be  induced  to  give 
us  a  book  on  the  mathematical  superposition  of  odor-waves, 
with  suitable  geometrical  diagrams  for  showing  the  blending 
curves  and  cross-angles  of  three  or  more  fundamental  smells, 
including  their  harmonics,  by  which  to  explain  in  his  usual  lucid 
style  how  this  hound  succeeded  in  -tracking  the  convict,  as  the 
effect  of  the  combination  chord  of  odorous  vibrations  as  they 
tickled  his  olfactory  nerve  ?  Then  let  the  distinguished  savant 
write  an  appendix  to  the  same  work,  formulating  the  scientific 
law  of  the  conservation  of  nothing,  or  the  persistence  of  motion, 
by  which  to  prove  that  the  vibratory  effluvium  from  the  con- 
vict's clothes  could  easily  keep  up  their  fragrant  tremors  against 
the  twigs  of  the  bushes  during  the  two  hours  the  "  red  dog  "  was 
swinging  around  the  circle.  Such  a  book  would,  no  doubt,  sell 
as  a  fitting  companion-piece  to  his  corresponding  work  on  sound, 
and  would  be  equall}7  as  scientific  in  every  respect. 

The  truth  is,  this  simple  and  serious  fact  that  odor  is  a  sub- 
stantial force,  impressing  the  nasal  membrane  of  this  dog  and 
thus  producing  its  complex  sensations  by  substantial  contact 
alone,  and  with  which  vibratory  motion  has  nothing  to  d*"\  is 
conclusive  analogical  evidence  that  sound  sensations  are  pro- 
duced in  a  similar  manner.  This  beautiful  and  consistent  view 


208  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

substantial  sound-force,  following  this  angle  of  incidence, 
rebounding  from  side  to  side  of  that  funnel,  like  infinites- 
imal india-rubber  balls,  thus  collecting  the  larger  quan- 
tity of  sound-force  ad  mitted  into  the  big  end  of  the  tube 
into  a  condensed  form  at  the  smaller  end,  just  as  sub- 
stantial light  rays,  by  the  same  law  of  reflection,  would 
rebound  from  side  to  side  of  a  similar  trumpet-shaped 
tube,  having  its  inner  surface  polished,  and  thus  causing 
an  intense  focus  of  light  and  heat  at  the  smaller  end. 

Q.  64.  Does  not  the  fact,  that  the  sound  of  two  books, 
when  clapped  together,  will  blow  out  a  candle  at  the 
small  end  of  a  long  tube,  as  illustrated  in  Prof.  Tyndall's 

of  Nature  would  have  been  reasoned  out  long  ago  from  the 
necessary  analogies  of  physical  science  based  on  substantial 
odor  alone,  had  the  rational  classification  of  all  substances  into 
material  and  immaterial  entities  suggested  itself  to  any  of  our 
distinguished  physical  philosophers.  But  regarding  nothing  as 
substantial  but  matter,  and  stopping  there,  has  hitherto  barred 
the  path  of  progressive  advancement  until  Substantialism,  with 
one  fortunate  stroke  of  its  leveling  ax,  broke  down  thii\  chief 
barricade  of  materialism. 

Now  we  can  see  and  understand,  with  but  a  modicum  of 
rational  reflection,  that  if  the  nose  of  that  Georgia  hound  is 
capable  of  analyzing  a  hundred  mixed  smells  on  the  basis  of 
substantial  odor,  it.  would  be  the  height  of  physical  inconsist- 
ency to  charge  Nature  with  upsetting  this  substantial  order  of 
things  by  abruptly  introducing  for  the  next  higher  sensation  a 
nonentitative  mode  of  motion.  We  repeat  our  original  state- 
ment, as  given  in  the  "  Problem  of  Human  Life,"  that  a  man 
who  can  suppose  such  an  unnecessary  incongruity  in  Nature's 
harmonious  plans  as  a  leap  from  actual  substantial  contact  in 
one  sensation  to  mere  motion  for  the  sensation  next  adjoining, 
when  the  latter  sensation  only  requires  a  more  refined  form  of 
substance  to  answer  every  purpose,  has  too  trifling  a  conception 
of  Nature  to  be  reasoned  with  or  to  reason  logically  on  any  mat- 
ter of  science. 

Dr.  Hall's  remarks  on  the  exciting  narrative  of  the  tracing  of 
convicts  at  the  Georgia  Penitentiary,  by  blood  hounds.— Scientific 
Arena,  Vol.  I.,  p.  51, 


THE  NATURE  AND  PHENOMENA  OF  SOUND.       209 

lectures,  prove  that  sound  consists  of  air-waves  instead 
of  immaterial  substance?* 

A.  Prof.  Tyndall  was  mistaken,  and  so  are  all  pro- 
fessors and  teachers  who  repeat  his  experiments.  It  was 
not  the  sound  from  the  clapped  books  which  blew  out 
the  candle,  but  a  puff  of  air  driven  through  the  tube, 
since  a  thin  paper  bag  tied  over  the  small  end  of  the 
tube,  with  the  atmosphere  all  pressed  out,  will  be  ex- 
panded and  filled  with  the  same  puff  of  air  which  blew 
out  the  candle;  and.  this  will  occur  as  often  as  the  books 
are  clapped  in  such  a  manner  as  to  drive  the  air- wave 
into  the  large  end  of  the  tube.  Surely  we  cannot  bag 
up  immaterial  sound-force! 

Q.  65.  How  has  Prof.  Tyndall,  and  how  have  all 
other  physicists  been  so  deceived  by  this  experiment,  if 
sound  itself  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  effect  of  extin- 
guishing the  candle? 

A.  They  have  all  taken  for  granted  that  the  wave- 
theory  of  sound  must  be  true,  since  to  them  no  other 
theory  has  seemed  possible.  Hence,  it  was  easy  to  fall 
into  this  error,  and  to  suppose  that  it  must  be  the  sound- 

*  "At  the  distant  end  of  the  tube  I  place  a  lighted  candle,  c, 
fig.  4.  When  I  clap  my  hands  at  this  end,  the  flame  instantly 
ducks  down.  It  is  not  quite  extinguished,  but  it  is  forcibly  de- 
pressed. When  I  clap  two  books,  B  B,  together,  /  blow  the  can- 
dle out.  You  may  here  observe,  in  a  rough  way,  the  speed  with 
which  the  sound-wave  is  propagated.  The  instant  I  clap,  the 
flame  is  extinguished;  there  is  no  sensible  interval  between  the 
clap  and  the  extinction  of  the  flame.  I  do  not  say  that  the  time 
required  by  the  sound  to  travel  through  this  tube  is  immeasura- 
bly short,  but  simply  that  the  interval  is  too  short  for  your 
senses  to  appreciate  it.  To  show  you  that  it  is  a  pulse  and  not  a 
puff  of  air,  I  fill  one  end  of  the  tube  with  smoke  of  brown  paper. 
On  clapping  the  books  together,  no  trace  of  this  smoke  is  ejected 
from  the  other  end.  The  pulse  has  passed  through  both  smoke 
and  air  without  carrying  either  of  them  along  with  it." — "  Lect- 
ures on  Sound,"  p.  12,  copied  "  Problem  of  Human  Life,"  p.  271, 


210  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

pulse  which  blew  out  the  candle,,  when  the  books  were 
clapped,  instead  of  the  puff  of  air  which  was  driven 
away  from  the  books  into  the  open  tube  at  the  same*  in- 
stant. This  superficial  error  is  almost  precisely  similar 
to  that  which  led  physicists  to  suppose  that  it  was  the 
sound-pulse  or  noise  which  broke  windows  at  a  distance 
from  a  magazine  explosion,  instead  of  the  wave  of  air 
caused  by  the  added  gas,  as  examined  in  answers  41,  42, 
and  43.* 

Q.  66.  Are  there  any  other  direct  proofs  besides  the 
paper-bag  test  to  show  this  tin -tube  experiment  to  be  er- 
roneous? 

A.  Yes,  many.  Let  the  books  be  clapped  in  a  direc- 
tion away  from  the  open  mouth  of  the  tube,  so  as  not  to 
force  any  air  into  it,  and  whatever  the  intensity  of  the 
sound  thus  generated  and  passed  through  the  tube,  no 
effect  will  be  produced  on  the  candle  flame  at  the  small 
end.  But  a  better  test  is  to  strike  a  bell  or  gong  right  at 

*  "The  most  striking  example  of  this  inflection  of  a  sono- 
rous wave  that  I  have  ever  seen,  was  exhibited  at  Erith  after 
the  tremendous  explosion  of  a  powder  magazine  which  oc- 
curred there  in  1864.  The  village  of  Erith  was  some  miles  dis- 
tant from  the  magazine,  but  in  nearly  all  cases  the  windows 
were  shattered;  and  it  was  noticeable  that  the  windows  turned 
away  from  the  origin  of  the  explosion  suffered  almost  as  much 
as  those  which  faced  it.  [This  effect  is  simply  explained  by  the 
tremendous  shove  given  to  the  air,  causing  it  to  compress  around 
the  buildings  equally  on  all  sides.  Professor  Tyndall  thinks  it 
was  the  "  sonorous  wave  "  which  inflected,  and  doubled  its  two 
ends  around  the  building,  thus  crushing  the  windows!]  Lead 
sashes  were  employed  in  Erith  church,  and  these  being  in  some 
degree  flexible,  enabled  the  windows  to  yield  to  the  pressure 
without  much  fracture  of  the  glass.  Every  window  in  the 
church,  front  and  back,  was  bent  inward.  In  fact,  as  the  sound- 
wave reached  the  church  it  separated  right  and  left,  and  for  a 
moment  the  edifice  was  clasped  by  a  girdle  of  intensely  com- 
pressed air," —  Lectures  on  Sound,  p.  23.  Quoted  and  criticised 
in  "  Problem  of  Human  Life,"  at  page  105. 


THE  NATURE  AND  PHENOMENA  OF  SOUND.  211 

the  large  mouth  of  the  tube,  and  although  the  sound 
may  be  almost  defening,  no  effect  is  produced  on  the  can- 
dle flame,  notwithstanding  this  sound  is  concentrated 
upon  it  in  great  intensity  at  the  small  end  of  the  tube. 
Then  to  reverse  the  original  experiment,  let  the  two 
books  be  clapped  as  was  done  by  Prof.  Tyndall,  but,  let 
them  be  prevented  from  coming  entirely  together  by  a 
piece  of  soft  rubber  secured  between  them,  and  though 
no  sound  will  be  produced,  yet  the  candle  will  be  blown 
out  all  the  same  and  alone  by  the  puff  of  air  sent  off  in 
both  instances. 

Q.  67.  As  puffs  of  air  do  not  thus  appear  to  constitute 
sound,  does  the  movement  of  air  impede  or  aid  the  travel 
of  sound? 

A.  Not  perceptibly  to  our  sensuous  observation.  Yet 
it  is  evident  in  strict  science,  that  so  much  must  be  added 
to  or  deducted  from  sound-velocity,  as  will  correspond 
with  the  bodily  movement  of  the  conducting  medium, 
either  with  the  sound  or  in  the  opposite  direction.  To 
illustrate:  As  sound  travels  in  still  air  at  sixty  deg.,  at  a 
velocity  of  1120  feet  a  second,  it  is  manifest  if  the  air 
itself  were  traveling  in  the  same  direction,  in  a  breeze  of 
thirty  feet  a  second  (or  about  twenty  miles  an  hour), 
that  we  would  have  to  add  these  thirty  feet  to  the  real 
velocity  of  sound  as  measured  from  one  fixed  station  to 
another,  making  it  1150  feet  a  second  instead  of  1120. 
But,  if -we  change  stations,  and  send  the  sound  against 
the  breeze,  we  must  necessarily  deduct  the  thirty  feet  a 
second  from  the  actual  velocity  of  the  sound,  making  it 
only  1090  feet  instead  of  1120.  So  it  would  be  with 
electricity  traveling  thrtfiigh  a  wire  by  an  analogous  law 
of  conduction  at,  say,  1000  miles  a  second.  If  by  any 
means  we  could  cause  the  wire  to  move  one  mile  a  sec- 
ond at  the  same  time,  this  mile  of  travel  would  have  to 
be  either  added  to  or  deducted  from  the  velocity 'of  the 


212  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

electricity,  according  as  the  wire  moved  either  with  or 
against  the  electric  current. 

Q.  68.  Are  there  any  experimental  proofs  that  sound 
is  not  perceptibly  impeded  when  traveling  against  a 
wind? 

A.  Many  such  proofs  are  on  record,  as  observed  from 
coast  signaling  stations,  in  which  fog-horns  and  steam- 
sirens  have  been  heard  for  miles  against  a  heavy  gale, 
when  they  could  not  be  heard  half  as  far  with  the  wind. 
Also  there  are  many  proofs  that  steam-sirens  and  signal- 
guns  which  have  not  been  heard  by  observers  stationed  a 
few  miles  out  at  sea,  were  plainly  audible  to  other  observ- 
ers far  beyond  the  first. 

Q.  69.  How  are  such  erratic  phenomena  of  a  sound  to 
be  explained  according  to  any  possible  theory  of  acous- 
tics? 

A.  They  are  rationally  explicable  according  to  the 
Substantial  Philosophy  which  makes  all  the  forces  or 
forms  of  energy  real,  substantial  entities,  instead  of  mere 
modes  of  motion.  If  sound  is  such  a  substantial  form  of 
force,  analogous  to  electricity,  it  must  travel  through  any 
material  body  by  its  laws  of  conduction  in  correlation  or 
co-operation  with  the  governing  force  of  cohesion  which 
arranges  and  holds  the  particles  of  all  conducting 
mediums  together,  as  explained  in  answers  to  33  and  34. 
Now,  it  is  readily  supposable  that  the  arrangement  of  air- 
particles  is  constantly  undergoing  change  by  the  action 
of  heat  and  cohesion,  aided  by  the  presence  or  absence  of 
aqueous  vapor,  barometric  changes,  electricity,  etc. 
Hence,  there  might  be  much  more  favorable  conditions 
and  arrangement  of  air-particles  for  the  travel  of  sound 
against  a  given  wind  than  in  the  opposite  direction;  and 
even  t\\e  grain  of  the  atmosphere,  so  to  speak  (as  known 
to  be  the  case  with  the  different  cohesive  arrangements  of 
particles  in  the  grain  or  fibrous  structure  of  wood),  might 
thus  prevent  the  travel  of  sound  through  certain  masses 


THE  NATURE  AND  PHENOMENA   OF  SOUND.  213 

of  air,  causing  it  to  bound  back,  thus  producing  an  echo, 
or  to  glance  over  the  heads  of  observers  therein  stationed, 
and  thus  reach  others  more  favorably  surrounded  many 
miles  beyond. 

Q.  70.  Are  not  such  atmospheric  conditions  equally 
favorable  to  the  wave-theory? 

A.  They  are  directly  opposed  to  it,  because  air-waves 
are  merely  mechanical  displacements  or  material  dis- 
turbances, and  no  difference  what  the  cohesive  arrange- 
ment or  conductive  grain  of  the  air  may  be,  or  what 
vapors  might  be  present,  mere  mechanical  undulations 
would  not  be  affected  one  way  or  the  other  by  which  to 
cause  such  conductive  phenomena  as  echoes,  or  the  glanc- 
ing of  sounds  over  the  heads  of  near  observers,  while 
reaching  those  still  further  distant. 

Q.  71.  Are  there  any  analogies  which  go  to  favor  this 
substantial  view? 

A.  Yes.  Let  a  rod  have  two  branches  close  together, 
one  of  copper  and  the  other  of  iron.  Now,  as  copper  is 
a  better  conductor  of  heat  than  iron,  owing  to  the  cohe- 
sive arrangements  of  its  substance,  let  us  place  the  end  of 
the  rod  in  fire,  and  it  will  be  found  that  the  heat,  in  trav- 
eling along  the  rod,  by  its  law  of  conduction,  in  co-opera- 
tion with  the  force  of  cohesion,  will  glance  around  the 
iron  branch,  following  the  copper  texture  as  better  suited 
to  it  under  the  correlation  of  the  forces.  Try  a  powerful 
current  of  electricity  through  the  same  rod,  and  it,  too, 
by  sufficiently  fine  tests,  will  be  found  to  glance  around 
the  iron,  and  to  follow  the  copper  with  much  greater  te- 
nacity. Then  try  sound,  and  by  the  same  correlation  of 
force,  it  will  be  found  to  prefer  the  iron  to  the  copper, 
glancing  around  the  latter,  and  accepting  the  iron  as  bet- 
ter adapted  to  its  co-operation  with  the  ruling  xorce  of 
cohesion,  which  holds  the  seat  of  honor  in  all  material 
bodies. 


214  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

Q.  72.  Is  not  the  greater  elasticity  of  the  iron,  and 
its  less  density  over  the  copper,  the  true  reason  why 
sound  selects  it  and  travels  through  it  with  greater  fa- 
cility? 

A.  Not  at  all.  This  is  abundantly  proved  by  an  iron 
pipe,  open  at  both  ends,  and  extending  for  a  few  miles. 
Let  a  sound  be  made  at  one  end  by  striking  the  pipe,  and 
it  will  be  found  that  this  sound  will  travel  seventeen 
times  faster  through  the  metal  than  through  the  air  of 
the  tube,  though  the  air  is  one  of  the  most  elastic  as  well 
as  one  of  the  least  dense  of  known  bodies.  By  the  for- 
mula of  Sir  Isaac  Newton  (which  assures  us  that  the  ve- 
locity of  sound  should  increase  in  proportion  as  the  elas- 
ticity of  a  conducting  body  is  great  and  its  density  is 
small,  and  vice  versa)  it  is  manifest  that  sound  should 
travel  many  hundred  times  faster  through  air  than 
through  soft  iron;  and  as  this  is  the  formula  on  which  the 
current  theory  of  sound  is  based — the  law  of  necessity 
breaks  down  the  theory  in  iron,  as  its  founder  also  proved 
it  to  break  down  the  theory  in  air.  See,  also,  answers  to 
Questions  33  and  34. 

Q.  73.  As  the  generation  of  sound-force  was  attrib- 
uted, near  the  commencement  of  this  chapter,  to  the  vi- 
bration of  some  sound -producing  body,  are  there  any 
other  means  known  to  science  than  vibratory  action  for 
sound-generation  ? 

A.  Yes,  by  the  conversion  of  one  force  into  another. 
It  has  been  proved  that  an  intermittent  ray  of  light  di- 
rected against  certain  substances,  such  as  lampblack, 
cotton  fiber,  etc.,  inclosed  in  a  glass  tube,  will  cause  an 
audible  sound  to  issue  from  the  tube  of  a  pitch  corre- 
sponding to  the  intermittent  beam  of  light.  As  light 
has  been  proved  to  exert  no  perceptible  mechanical  effect 
in  displacing  a  material  body,  however  powerfully  con- 
centrated upon  it,  it  is  fair  to  infer  that  sensible  vibra- 
tions of  the  glass  tube  or  of  its  contents  could  not  have 


THE  NATURE  AND  PHENOMENA   OF  SOUND.  215 

been  produced  by  the  impact  of  such  ray;  and  as  no 
changes  from  heat  to  cold,  causing  vibrational  expansion 
and  contraction,  could  possibly  take  place  with  sufficient 
rapidity  to  produce  a  high  pitch  of  tone,  it  follows  una- 
voidably that  the  light-force  thus  intermittently  projected 
against  the  tube  must  have  been  directly  converted  into 
sound. 

Q.  74.  Is  there  any  proof  that  other  forms  of  force 
have  ever  been  directly  converted  into  sound,  or  that  one 
form  of  force  can  be  certainly  converted  into  another? 

A.  Yes;  we  have  many  proofs  of  such  conversion  of 
the  forces.  It  is  well  known  that  an  electric  telephone 
will  convey  sounds  without  any  vibration  having  been 
produced,  first,  by  converting. such  sounds  into  electric- 
ity, thus  augmenting  the  intensity  of  the  current,  and 
then  at  the  receiving  diaphragm  reconverting  the  elec- 
tricity into  sound,  making  the  words  audible,  and  that, 
too,  without  any  mechanical  vibration  occurring  at  either 
diaphragm. 

Q.  75.  By  what  experimental  proof,  if  any,  is  it 
known  that  no  vibration  occurred  at  the  transmitting 
diaphragm  of  the  telephone  referred  to  when  the  message 
was  spoken  against  it? 

A.  It  has  been  repeatedly  shown  that  the  vibration  of 
a  disk  at  the  transmitting  end  is  not  at  all  essential  to 
the  conveyance  of  speech  over  the  electric  wire.  This 
has  been  done  by  substituting  a  solid  and  rigid  disk  of 
iron,  an  inch  thick,  for  the  flexible  disk  commonly  em- 
ployed, and  it  has  been  found  that  words  have  been  dis- 
tinctly conveyed  thereby  over  the  wire.  Indeed,  mes- 
sages have  been  spoken  against  the  naked  ends  of  the 
transmitting  magnet,  without  any  disk  at  all,  and  the 
words  have  still  been  sent,  and  heard  at  the  receiving 
end  all  right.  And  as  no  vibration  at  the  receiving  disk 
could  be  detected  by  the  finest  tests  that  could  be  ap- 
plied, and  the  message  heard,  even  when  no  receiving 


216  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

diaphragm  was  used,  it  was  but  reasonable  to  infer  that 
the  spoken  sounds  striking  the  magnet  were  converted 
directly  into  electricity,  conveyed  in  this  form  to  the  far 
end  of  the  wire,  and  there  reconverted  into  sounds.* 

Q.  76.  Is  there  any  direct  proof  that  electricity  is 
ever  converted  into  other  forms  of  force  besides  sound? 

A.  Yes;  many  such  proofs.  Electricity  passed 
through  a  wire,  will,  by  sufficiently  increasing  its  inten- 
sity, be  converted  into  lieat  till  it  will  melt  platinum. 
In  doing  this  it  is  also  converted  into  the  most  intense 
light  by  incandescence,  and  it  caa  also  be  converted  into 
another  form  of  light,  evolving  no  heat,  as  seen  in  the 
aurora  borealis.  But  the  most  indubitable  proof  of 
force-conversion,  /s  in  the  passage  of  a  current  of  elec- 
tricity several  times  around  a  piece  of  soft  iron,  thus  con- 

*  But  the  phenomena  of  the  Telephone  are  entirely  different. 
It  is  true  its  diaphragm  may  vibrate  when  spoken  to  with  force, 
as  does  that  of  the  phonograph;  but  such  vibratory  motion  is 
not  necessary  to  the  conveyance  of  a  message  through  the  elec- 
tric wire.  It  has  been  proved  by  Dr.  R.  M.  Ferguson,  Ph.  D., 
F.  R.  S.,  the  eminent  Scotch  physicist,  as  published  in  the  Scien- 
tific American  Supplement,  No.  120,  and  also  by  Count  Du  Mon- 
cel,  the  renowned  French  electrician,  as  published  in  his  work 
on  the  telephone,  that  the  action  which  is  conveyed  from  the 
telephone  through  the  electric  conductor,  and  which  is  heard  at 
the  receiving  instrument,  must  be  regarded  as  "  molecular," 
since  the  most  refined  observation  shows  no  vibratory  motion 
whatever  in  the  receiving  diaphragm.  In  fact,  both  these  high 
authorities  have  shown  that  no  diaphragm  is  necessary  either  at 
the  receiving  or  transmitting  end  of  the  line,  since  messages  have 
been  sent  by  speaking  against  the  naked  poles  of  the  magnet. 
and  heard  at  the  receiver  without  any  diaphragm  or  other  body 
capable  of  vibration.  Hence,  they  have  recently  announced  to 
the  scientific  world  that  the  theory  of  sound  will  have  to  be  re- 
constructed, since  molecular  action  of  some  kind  is  forced  to  take 
the  place  of  the  supposed  vibratory  motion  in  the  telephone, 
This  is  no  doubt  correct,  as  far  as  it  goes,  but  we  may  reasona- 
bly expect  that  these  eminent  scientists  will  go  still  further,  and 
in  due  time  make  another  announcement,  that  the  entire  wavs 


THE  NATURE  AND  PHENOMENA  OF  SOUND.  217 

verting  the  electric  force  into  magnetism,  a  form  of 
force  entirely  different  from  that  of  electricity,  since  the 
magnetic  form  of  force  requires  no  conductor,  but  will 
pass  through  all  bodies  alike,  and  as  freely  as  if  nothing 
intervened,  while  electricity  not  only  needs  a  conductor, 
but  is  almost  completely  stopped  by  certain  substances  such 
glass.  Heat,  also,  as  in  a  thermal  pile,  is  not  only  con- 
verted into  a  powerful  current  of  electricity,  but  can  be 
converted  into  the  most  brilliant  incandescent  light  if  suf- 
ficiently intensified.  Now,  if  all  these  conversions  of  one 
form  of  physical  force  into  another  is  rationally  evident, 
is  it  not  reasonably  manifest  that  both  light-force  and 
electric  force,  as  substantial  entities,  may  be  converted 
into  sound-force,  in  accordance  with  the  illustrations 
here  given? 

Q.  77.     If  sound  is  a  substantial  force,  analogous  to 

theory  will  have  to  give  way  to  the  molecular  and  corpuscular 
hypothesis. 

As  sound-pulses  are  thus  shown,  by  the  highest  authorities  on 
the  subject  in  Europe,  to  pass  through  the  electric  conductor 
without  wave  or  vibratory  motion,  I  may  safely  claim  one-half 
of  my  new  departure  as  accepted,  and  for  the  remaining  half  it 
will  only  be  necessary  to  arrive  at  a  better  understanding  of  the 
correlation  and  interconvertibility  of  these  incorporeal  sub- 
stances, such  as  sound,  electricity,  light,  heat,  etc.,  and  we  will 
readily  comprehend  how  substantial  sound-pulses,  spoken  against 
the  magnetized  transmitter,  may  combine  with  the  substantial 
electric  fluid,  and  thus  bo  conveyed  in  its  embrace,  so  to  speak, 
to  the  distant  receiver  without  the  assistance  of  any  corporeal 
movement  whatever  of  the  wire,  magnet,  or  diaphragm.  This 
view,  of  course,  involves  molecular  motion,  not  of  the  material 
substance  of  the  magnet  or  wire,  as  these  physicists  have  hastily 
supposed,  but  rather  the  molecular  and  corpuscular  motion  of 
the  two  blending  and  correlated  substances — sound  and  electric- 
ity— the  only  active  substances  involved  in  this  operation.  The 
explanation  thus  given  is  not  only  consistent  with  the  phenom- 
ena in  question,  but  it  fully  corroborates  the  view  of  sound  taken 
in  this  monograph,  as  any  one  can  see  who  will  take  the  trouble 
to  read  it.— Dr.  Hall,  in  "  Problem  of  Human  Life,"  p.  334. 


218  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

electricity  or  heat,  as  these  answers  show,  and  if  the  air- 
pulse  theory  is  a  mistake,  why  is  it  that  the  velocity  of 
sound  through  air,  inclosed  in  a  long  tube,  is  the  same 
exactly  as  that  of  a  condensed  atmospheric  pulse  caused 
by  suddenly  forcing  a  piston  into  one  end  of  such  tube? 

A.  This  concluding  premise  is  not  correct.  The 
highest  authorities  in  physical  science  have  assumed  such 
to  be  a  fact,  but  without  ever  having  tried  the  experi- 
ment. The  reason  for  such  confident  assumption  is 
manifest  and  unavoidable  in  the  very  necessities  of  the 
wave-theory  of  sound.  As  all  sounds,  loud  and  soft,  were 
universally  believed  to  consist  of  air-pulses,  or  atmospheric 
condensations  and  rarefactions,  and  as  all  sounds  were 
known  to  travel  through  air  at  the  same  uniform  velocity, 
hence  the  doctrine  stood  unquestioned  that  a  pulse,  caused 
to  pass  through  a  tube  by  forcing  a  piston  into  one  end 
of  it,  would  necessarily  obey  this  law  of  sound-velocity, 
no  matter  what  force  should  be  applied  to  the  piston, 
what  degree  of  condensation  the  piston  shonld  produce,  or 
what  distance  it  should  be  instantaneously  driven  into  the 
tube.  Dr.  Hall  was  the  first  writer  to  call  this  law  in  ques- 
tion, as  he  was  the  first  to  announce  the  numerous  abrupt 
departures  from  physical  science  set  forth  in  this  chapter.* 

*  The  foregoing  being  the  unperverted  and  undeniable  logic  of 
physicists,  let  us  for  a  few  minutes  turn  to  the  record.  By  ref- 
erence to  "  Appleton's  American  Encyclopedia "  and  its  ele- 
gantly written  article  on  "  Sound,"  fortunately  within  the  reach 
of  all  students  desiring  to  investigate  the  matter,  Prof.  Mayer, 
the  highest  authority  on  sound  in  this  country  and  called  by 
many  the  Helmholtz  of  America,  makes  use  of  this  very  illus- 
tration of  the  tube  with  a  movable  piston  at  one  end,  and  actu- 
ally assumes  and  teaches  that  the  velocity  of  the  atmospheric 
condensation  caused  by  a  sudden  shove  of  the  piston  must  neces- 
sarily be  the  same  as  that  of  sound,  or  must  of  necessity  travel 
1090  feet  in  a  second  at  a  temperature  of  thirty-two  degrees 
Fahrenheit,  since  that  is  the  admitted  velocity  of  sound.  As 
surprising  as  it  may  seem  to  the  unscientific  reader,  and  in  ex- 
act conformity  to  the  foregoing  argument,  this  physicist  makes 


THE  NATURE  AND  PHENOMENA  OF  SOUND.       219 

Q.  78.  On  what  ground  is  it  assumed  that  this  old 
law  of  pulse-travel  and  velocity  through  a  long  tube, 
must  be  incorrect? 

A.  The  assumption  is  based  on  the  self-evident  prin- 
ciple of  mechanics  that  the  greater  the  force  with  which  a 
body  is  projected,  other  things  being  equal,  the  swifter 
will  it  go;  and  that,  by  the  same  necessary  law,  the 
greater  the  condensation  produced  instantaneously  in  the 
air  of  one  end  of  the  tube  by  a  movement  of  the  piston, 
the  swifter  must  such  condensed  pulse  travel  toward  the 
other  end.  Hence,  if  sound  consists  of  air-pulses,  as  the 
old  theory  teaches,  it  must  as  certainly  follow  that  loud 
sounds,  constituted  of  heavy  condensations  of  air,  will 
travel  faster  than  faint  sounds.  As  this  is  known  not  to 
be  the  case  (see  answer  32),  it  follows  that  the  wave- 
theory  cannot  be  true,  and  therefore  that  sound  must  con- 
sist of  something  besides  atmospheric  pulses.  What 
else  is  there  for  sound  to  be,  unless  it  be  a  substantial 
force? 

no  distinction  whatever  in  the  velocity  of  the  condensed  wave 
thus  generated,  whether  the  piston  is  moved  one  inch  or  ten 
feet  so  the  movement  is  instantaneous;  and,  consequently,  he 
points  out  no  difference  in  the  speed  of  such  a  pulse,  whether 
the  spring-force  of  the  condensation  generated  by  the  piston's 
movement  b«  equal  to  a  pressure  of  one  ounce  or  one  thousand 
pounds!  He  assumes  this  velocity  of  the  condensed  wave  along 
the  tube  to  be  the  same  as  that  of  sound — nothing  more  and 
nothing  less — and  hence  it  must  be  the  same  necessarily,  what- 
ever the  spring- force  employed  to  drive  it,  since  the  velocity  of 
sound  through  this  tube  at  any  definite  temperature,  as  already 
shown,  is  always  the  same. 

As  this  writer  fails  to  note  this  distinction,  but  rather  ignores 
it,  the  same  as  did  Prof.  Tyndall  in  reference  to  the  magazine 
explosion  and  the  destruction  of  the  windows  at  Erith  by  a 
"  sound-wave,"  I  am  therefore  compelled,  as  I  did  in  the  other 
case,  to  definitely  point  out  the  law  governing  the  transmission 
both  of  the  sound  and  of  the  atmospheric  condensation  through 
this  tube,  and  thus  to  indicate  the  manifest  difference  between 
them,  which  science  and  its  exponents  so  far  have  failed  to  do. 


220  THE  SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

Q.  79.  Has  this  new  and  opposing  theory  of  pulse- 
velocity  ever  been  tested  by  which  to  show  that  the 
wave-theory  of  sound  cannot  be  true? 

A.  No.  The  originator  of  this  substantial  theory 
simply  makes  the  prediction,  based  on  his  general  dis- 
coveries, that  whenever  any  college  shall  go  to  the  ex- 
pense and  trouble  of  making  the  test  with  suitable  tub- 
ing, the  result  will  be  found  to  conform  to  the  law  lie 
has  announced,  namely,  that  the  pulse  thus  generated  by 
moving  a  piston  into  one  end  of  a  tube,  will  necessarily 
travel  with  varying  velocity,  just  in  proportion  to  the 
distance  the  piston  is  instantly  moved  and  the  strength 
of  the  spring -power  of  the  pulse  thus  generated.  The 
founder  of  the  Substantial  Philosophy  willingly  risks  the 
fate  of  Substantial  ism  upon  the  absolute  truth  of  this 
revolutionary  position. 

Q.  80.  Does  the  same  law  of  sound-conduction,  ac- 
cording to  the  substantial  theory,  prevail  in  solids, 
liquids,  and  gases? 

Let  us  suppose  the  piston  to  be  moved  instantaneously  into 
the  tube  a  certain  distance  by  the  blow  of  a  hammer,  which 
also  makes  a  sharp  report  at  the  same  time.  This  simultaneous 
sound  of  the  blow  and  atmospheric  wave  produced  by  the  move- 
ment of  the  piston  might  or  might  not  travel  with  the  same  ve- 
locity toward  the  far  end  of  the  tube.  It  would,  of  course,  de- 
pend entirely  upon  the  distance  the  piston  was  driven  by  the 
blow  of  the  hammer,  or,  in  other  words,  upon  the  quantity  of 
air  (in  effect)  thereby  added  to  the  atmosphere  of  the  tube.  It 
is  evident  that  a  true  distance  for  the  piston  suddenly  to  move 
by  this  blow  might  be  arrived  at  by  experiment  which  would 
furnish  just  enough  spring-force  to  carry  the  condensed  wave 
through  the  tube  with  a  velocity  equal  to  but  not  exceeding  that 
of  the  sound- pulse  caused  by  the  same  blow  of  the  hammer. 
But  it  is  likewise  evident  that  a  distance  might  be  selected  for 
the  piston  to  move  (say  one-sixteenth  of  an  inch)  which  would 
produce  so  little  compression  of  the  air  in  front  as  to  cause  the 
condensed  wave  to  lag  behind,  and  possibly  not  travel  one-tenth 
as  fast  as  the  sound  of  the  hammer.  In  this  case,  however,  the 


THE  NATURE  AND  PHENOMENA  OF  SOUND.       221 

A.  Precisely  the  same,  namely,  the  cohesive  arrange- 
ment of  the  particles  of  the  various  material  substances 
serving  as  sound- conducting  mediums;  and  the  correla- 
tion of  cohesive  force  and  sound-force  in  relation  to 
these  various  arrangements  of  such  material  parti- 
cles. Just  as  electric-force  or  light-force  will  travel 
better  through  some  bodies  than  through  others  by 
the  co-operation  or  opposition  of  the  regnant  force  of  co- 
hesion, and  without  any  reference  whatever  to  the  elas- 
ticity, density,  mobility,  or  compressibility  of  such 
material  bodies,  so  will  sound-force  travel  through  air, 
the  various  gases,  water,  wood,  iron,  glass,  etc.,  by  the 
same  correlation  or  co-operation  with  cohesive  force,  and 
the  various  different  ways  in  which  that  force  has  ar- 
ranged and  now  maintains  the  material  particles  of 
various  bodies  to  facilitate  or  impede  such  sound  conduc- 
tion. 

Q.  81.  At  the  twenty-ninth  answer  it  is  taught  that 
the  sounding  bell  in  vacuois  not  heard  outside  of  the  re- 
condensation,  as  before  remarked,  would  probably  travel  through 
the  tube  at  a  uniform  velocity  from  end  to  end,  though  the  sound 
would  vastly  outstrip  it.  The  speed  of  so  slight  a  condensation 
would  resemble  that  of  a  condensed  wave  from  a  magazine 
explosion  when  it  had  nearly  spent  itself  by  expansion  and  rare- 
fraction,  as  already  explained.  And,  finally,  it  is  evident  that  a 
distance  could  be  determined  for  the  piston  to  move  (say  ten, 
twenty,  or  forty  feet)  simultaneously  "with  the  blow  of  the 
hammer,  provided  it  could  be  instantaneous,  which  would  add 
sufficient  spring-force  to  carry  the  condensed  wave  with  a  ve- 
locity twice  or  even  three  times  that  of  sound.  Is  not  this  sim- 
ple and  clear. 

Yet  these  palpable  and  manifest  distinctions,  lying  at  the  very 
basis  of  pneumatics  and  acoustics,  as  any  analytical  mind  must 
perceive,  have  never  entered  the  thoughts  of  these  great  physi- 
cists. Why?  The  answer  is  plain.  Simply  because  the  univer- 
sally accepted  wave-theory  of  sound  is  obliged  to  lay  down  as 
its  fundamental  principle  that  a  sound-pulse  of  any  kind  con- 
sists in  and  is  propagated  by  means  of  a  condensation  of  the 


222  THE  SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

ceiver  for  want  of  a  conducting  medium  for  its  sound- 
pulses.  Does  the  bell  in  racuo  thus  struck  by  clock- 
work generate  sound-force  the  same  as  if  it  were  in  air? 
A.  Yes,  just  as  a  dynamo-machine  in  vacuo,  and  per- 
fectly insulated  from  outside  objects,  would  generate 
electricity.  But  in  both  cases  the  force  thus  generated, 
not  having  a  conducting  medium  by  which  to  manifest 
itself  outside,  returns  to  the  force-element  or  force- 
reservoir  of  nature  whence  it  came,  thus  losing  its  form 
or  identity  as  fast  as  liberated  by  the  appropriate  proc- 
esses for  its  generation. 

Q.  82.     "Would  not  a  bell  thus  rung  continuously  in 

air,  and  can  only  travel  as  such  compressed  atmospheric  pulse. 
Hence,  after  starting  out  with  this  fallacy,  it  became  necessary, 
in  order  to  harmonize  natural  phenomena,  to  compel  all  kinds 
of  atmospheric  condensations  to  conform  to  this  law,  and  thus 
to  travel  at  the  observed  velocity  of  sound!  As  physicists  were 
unable  to  separate  the  concussive  shock  of  a  magazine  explosion 
from  its  sound-report,  but  must  suppose  the  two  necessarily  to 
be  one  and  the  same  thing,  according  to  this  wave-hypothesis,  it 
is  asking  altogether  too  much  of  them  now  to  distinguish  be- 
tween the  velocity  of  a  condensed  wave  in  a  tube  and  its  accom- 
panying sound  derived  simultaneously  from  the  blow  of  a  ham- 
mer! It  is  owing  entirely  to  the  blinding  effect  of  this  all-per- 
vading fallacy  of  atmospheric  sound-waves  having  "  condensa- 
tions and  rarefractions,"  generating  thereby  "  heat,"  and  thus 
adding  "one-sixth"  to  the  elasticity  of  the  air  and  the  velocity 
of  sound,  that  we  see  Prof.  Tyndall  deliberately  and  almost  piti- 
ably jumbling  a  "  sound-wave"  or  a  "  sonorous  pulse  "  with  the 
"  girdle  of  intensely  compressed  air"  which  crushed  in  the  win- 
dows at  Erith  !  And  it  is  owing  to  the  same  reason  that  we  see 
Prof.  Mayer,  one  of  the  most  brilliant  intellects  of  America, 
laying  down  his  law  that  the  velocity  of  a  condensed  wave  in  a 
tube,  caused  by  the  sudden  shove  of  a  piston,  must  necessarily 
,be  1090  feet  a  second,  or.  in  other  words,  must  conform  to  the 
observed  velocity  of  sound,  without  the  least  regard  to  the 
amount  of  condensation  the  piston  produced,  or  the  force  thus 
brought  to  bear  in  propelling  the  wave. — Dr,  Hall,  in  the 
«« Problem  of  Human  Life,"  p.  109, 


THE  NATURE  AND  PHENOMENA  OF  SOUND.       223 

vacuo  be  reduced  in  its  material  substance,  and  finally  be 
entirely  dissipated  in  the  form  of  sound-force? 

A.  No.  Herein  lies  the  superficial  mistake  of  those 
who  oppose  the  Substantial  Philosophy.  They  do  not 
grasp  the  broad  distinction  between  material  and  im- 
material substances.  A  ringing  bell  gives  off  none  of  its 
material  substance  in  the  production  of  sound,  and  is 
only  the  material  instrument  by  which  the  force-element 
of  nature  is  reached  and  this  peculiar  form  of  force  de- 
veloped and  manifested  to  our  senses  through  proper  con- 
ducting media.  Lucretius  vaguely  caught  the  same  idea 
of  sound  that  Newton  taught  for  light  in  his  emission 
theory,  namely,  that  by  exercising  our  vocal  organs,  ma- 
terial sound-particles  were  emitted,  thus'in  time  wearing 
out  the  voice,  causing  hoarseness,  consumption,  etc.  It 
was  impossible  for  any  investigator  to  grasp  the  true 
nature  of  light  and  sound,  as  in  no  way  constituted  of 
the  material  particles  of  the  luminous  and  sonorous 
bodies,  until  the  Substantial  Philosophy  had  classified 
the  substances  of  nature  into  material  and  immaterial 
entities. 

Q.  83.  But  would  not  a  bell  continuously  rung, 
finally  be  worn  out? 

A.  Yes.  Any  body  which  requires  its  own  vibratory 
action  or  tremor  in  order  to  generate  or  liberate  a  given 
form  of  natural  force,  must,  in  the  nature  of  things,  dis- 
integrate or  reduce  itself  by  continuous  wear  in  such 
process  of  liberating  force.  But  surely,  a  student  of 
science  should  be  able  to  see  that  such  wear  and  de- 
terioration of  the  instrument  is  no  more  a  part  of  the  im- 
material force  thus  liberated,  than  are  the  particles  of 
the  mill-stones  worn  off  and  dissipated  in  the  process  of 
grinding  wheat  a  part  of  the  flour  thus  produced.  A 
bell  may  be  worn  and  partly  dissipated  to  dust  in  the 
process  of  vibrating  and  sounding,  but  every  part  of  that 
dust  still  remains  in  existence  as  metallic  matter,  and  if 


224  THE     SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

collected  would  again  produce  the  same  bell  intact  by  re- 
casting. 

Q.  84.  Is  this  reasoning  applicable  to  the  generation 
and  liberation  of  light-force  by  a  consuming  taper  or  other 
luminous  body? 

A.  Yes.  The  process  of  consumption  in  a  burning 
candle,  or  the  substance  thus  undergoing  disintegration 
or  dissipation,  constitutes  no  part  of  the  luminous  rays 
which  pass  off  into  space  by  the  unknown  law  of  luminous 
radiation  at  a  velocity  of  nearly  200,000  miles  a  second. 
This  process  of  disintegration  in  the  luminous  body  does 
not  change  one  particle  of  the  material  body  into  light- 
force,  just  as  the  disintegrating  process  of  the  liquid  bat- 
tery does  not  change  one  particle  of  the  zinc  or  acid  into 
electricity,  since  such  a  battery,  operated  for  days  and 
so  inclosed  as  to  avoid  loss  by  evaporation,  will  weigh  the 
same,  notwithstanding  the  thousands  of  volts  of  dynamic 
electricity  which  have  passed  away  from  this  battery  to 
do  mechanical  work  at  a  distance.  The  true  solution  of 
these  various  material  processes,  for  liberating  different 
forms  of  physical  force,  rests  on  the  same  general  law, 
namely,  the  wear  or  disintegration  of  some  form  of  mat- 
ter by  which,  through  certain  disturbances  of  cohesive 
force,  to  tap  the  force-element  of  Nature,  and  thus  de- 
velop and  liberate  that  form  of  force  desired,  without 
such  form  of  force  consisting  in  the  slightest  degree  of 
the  matter  thus  disintegrated. 

Q.  85.  As  luminosity  in  the  consuming  taper  is  both 
caused  and  accompanied  by  heat,  is  heat  also  evolved 
from  this  universal  force-fountain  of  Nature? 

A.  Not  always  directly,  but  more  often  by  the  con- 
version of  other  forms  of  force  into  heat.  The  property 
of  combustibility  in  matter,  which  is  owing  to  the  pe- 
culiar cohesive  arrangement  of  its  particles,  is  a  powerful 
condition  for  the  conversion  of  cohesive  force  into  heat, 
a  spark  may  start  a  conflagration  which,  after  the 


THE  NATURE  AND  PHENOMENA  OF  SOUND.       225 

initial  conversion,  expands  by  what  it  feeds  on.  No  par- 
ticle of  the  combustive  material  is  consumed  or  destroyed 
in  the  absolute  sense,  but  it  exists  as  completly  as  before, 
though  in  different  forms,  such  as  ashes,  vapors,  gases, 
etc.  The  great  manifestation  of  light  and  heat-energy 
witnessed  in  a  conflagration,  is  but  the  substantial  force 
of  cohesion,  which  held  the  combustible  matter  Jbogether, 
changing  its  form  to  that  of  heat  and  light.  The  light 
and  heat,  thus  resulting  from  the  breaking  up  and  con- 
version of  coehsive  force,  after  their  energy  is  expended, 
fijid  their  way  into  the  force-element  of  Nature,  where, 
by  correlation  with  other  forms  of  expended  force,  they 
become  one,  and  whence  they  are  again  ready  to  emerge 
by  the  demands  of  natural  law  in  the  same  or  other  forms 
of  force,  but  sepecially  that  of  cohesion  in  its  process 
of  rebuilding  forests  of  combustible  material  out  of  the 
ashes,  vapors,  and  gases  into  which  heat  had  separated 
those  existing  before. 

Q.  86.  But  is  disintegration  necessary  to  the  develop- 
ment of  every  form  of  force  known  to  science? 

A.  No;  some  forms  of  force,  after  having  been  sep- 
arated from  the  force-fountain  of  Nature,  become  per- 
manently fixed  or  located  in  material  bodies  for  definite 
manifestation.  Cohesive  force,  for  example,  as  also  grav- 
ital  force,  has,  by  the  economy  of  nature,  been  definitely 
located  in  all  matter  to  its  infinitesimal  constituents,  and 
there  resides  always  ready  to  act.  So  with  magnetic 
force,  as  seen  in  the  loadstone  or  permanent  magnet. 
Such  magnet,  by  the  peculiar  relation  of  cohesive  force 
with  its  constituent  particles,  is  enabled  to  draw  continu- 
ously from  the  force-element  of  Nature  this  form  of 
force  called  magnetism,  and  thus  pour  it  off  in  cycling 
currents,  by  which  other  material  bodies,  whose  cohesive 
arrangement  of  particles  puts  them  in  sympathetic  re- 
lation with  these  magnetic  streams,  are  dynamically 
drawn  or  repelled,  as  the  case  may  be.  Thus  harmoni- 


220  THE   SUBSTANTIAL    PHILOSOPHY. 

ously  are  all  the  forces  or  forms  of  energy  in  Nature 
brought  into  consistent  relationship  one  to  another  under 
the  magical  solving  power  of  Substantialism,  without 
forcing  us  to  resort  to  so-called  modes  of  motion  in  phys- 
ics which  neither  accomplish  nor  explain  anything. 

Q.  87.  What  is  meant  by  the  wave-lengths  of  sound, 
and  what  relation,  if  any,  do  they  sustain  to  the  Substan- 
tial Theory  of  Acoustics? 

A.  As  the  Substantial  Theory  does  not  recognize  air- 
waves as  constituting  any  part  of  sound-force,  it  has  no 
use  for  wave-lengths  in  sound.  Besides,  the  idea  of 
wave-length  where  there  is  no  wave-amplitude,  or  no  to- 
and-fro  motion  of  the  wave-substance  (since  no  such  am- 
plitude as  constituting  sound,  aside  from  incidental  tre- 
mor, has  ever  been  seen  even  under  a  microscope),  is  an 
incongruity  so  repugnant  to  reason  as  to  be  at  once  dis- 
carded by  an  unbiased  student  of  science. 

Q.  88.  What  are  some  of  the  wave-lengths  of  sound 
according  to  the  current  theory,  and  in  what  way  do  they 
conflict  with  our  reason? 

A.  This  theoretic  idea  of  wave-lengths  depends  upon 
the  velocity  of  sound  in  different  mediums,  and  the  num- 
ber, of  vibrations  of  the  sounding  instrument  required  to 
make  any  given  pitch  of  tone.  The  higher  the  pitch  of 
sound,  and  the  slower  its  velocity,  the  shorter  the  wave- 
lengths become;  and  vice  versa.  To  obtain  the  wave- 
length of  any  given  sound  through  any  given  substance, 
according  to  the  theory,  divide  the  velocity  per  second 
by  the  number  of  vibrations  per  second.  Thus,  as  the 
velocity  of  sound  in  air  is  1120  feet  per  second,  it  fol- 
lows that  the  note  A,  or  the  sound  made  by  the  second 
string  of  the  violin,  having  440  vibrations  per  second, 
must  have  wavelengths  of  thirty  and  one-half  inches. 
The  highest  note  in  the  common  orchestra  (D  of  the 
piccolo  flute)  gives  a  wave-length  of  about  three  inches, 
which  is  determined  by  dividing  the  velocity  of  sound 


THE  NATURE  AND  PHENOMENA  OF  SOUND.  227 

(1120  feet),  by  about  4,700  vibrations  per  second.  The 
lowest  note  of  the  church  organ  (sixteen  vibrations  per  sec- 
ond) gives  a  wave-length  in  air  of  seventy  feet.  Were  this 
note  to  be  sounded  in  water,  in  which  sound  travels  with 
four  times  its  velocity  in  air,  its  wave-length  would  be 
280  feet  from  condensation  to  condensation,  or  from  the 
center  of  one  wave  to  the  center  of  the  next.  But  if 
this  organ  pipe  should  be  sounded  in  connection  with  an 
extended  mass  of  iron  (in  which  sound  travels  seventeen 
times  faster  than  in  air),  its  system  of  waves  from  center 
to  center  of  two  adjoining  ones,  would  have  the  prodigious 
wave-length  of  1190  feet,  or  several  times  the  wave- 
lengths of  the  largest  ocean  billows.  But  notwithstand- 
ing these  actual  wave-lengths  of  nearly  a  quarter  of  a 
mile  from  the  center  of  one  iron  undulation  to  that  of 
another,  there  is  no  amplitude  or  to-and-fro  motion  of 
the  iron  particles  discoverable  under  the  microscope.* 


*  But  I  have  not  yet  reached  the  culmination  of  these  logical 
and  common-sense  reasons  for  rejecting  air-waves  as  the  prin- 
ciple of  sonorous  propagation,  nor  have  I  touched  upon  the 
greatest  absurdities  which  such  an  assumption  necessarily  in- 
volves. I  have  already  stated  the  logical  fact,  that,  if  sound- 
waves in  air  constitute  air-waves,  as  Prof.  Brockett  teaches, 
and  as  admitted  by  all  writers  on  the  subject,  then  sound-waves 
in  iron  constitute  iron-waves.  It  is  impossible  to  evade  this. 
Further,  as  atmospheric  sound- waves  are  formed  by  "a  small 
excursion  to  and  fro "  of  the  air  particles,  thus  constituting 
their  "  amplitude,"  without  which  air- waves  could  not  exist 
(see  many  quotations  to  this  effect,  Evolution  of  Sound,  p.  7c), 
it  follows  that  iron  sound-waves  must  also  be  formed  by  "a 
small  excursion  to  and  fro "  of  the  iron  particles,  «thus  consti- 
tuting the  necessary  "amplitude"  of  iron-waves,  and  without 
which  a  "  wave  "  is  a  nonentity!  But  as  no  such  "  excursion  to 
and  fro "  of  the  iron  particles  occurs  in  a  solid  mass  of  iron 
when  conducting  sound,  even  when  examined  under  the  most 
powerful  lenses,  and  consequently  no  "amplitude"  exists  in 
such  supposed  iron  undulations,  it  demonstrates  that  there  is  no 
wave-motion  in  iron  as  the  result  of  sound,  and  hence  that  sound 


228  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

All  correct  ideas  of  undulatory  or  wave-motion  should 
make  water  billows,  having  a  wave-length  of  1190  feet, 
at  least  100  feet  high  from  crest  to  sinus,  according  to 
the  proportion  which  prevails  in  all  systems  of  water- 
waves.  Another  insurmountable  difficulty  connected 
with  this  theory  of  enormous  wave-lengths  in  sound  is 
this:  As  sound  can  only  travel  in  waves  through  any 
substance,  it  follows  that  the  sound  of  this  organ-pipe 
could  not  be  heard  passing  through  iron,  say  ten  feet 
thick,  since  it  would  only  furnish  room  for  less  than  the 
one-hundredth  part  of  one  wave  at  a  time!  How  could 
such  waves  be  appropriated  as  sound,  with  1180  feet  of 
each  wave  missing  for  want  of  a  piece  of  iron  big  enough? 
Thus  does  reason  revolt  at  the  very  foundation  of  the 
wave-theory  as  an  undulatory  movement  based  upon 

must  pass  through  iron  by  some  other  law;  and  if  through  iron 
then  through  air,  as  there  evidently  can  be  no  two  different 
modes  or  principles  of  sound-propagation  through  different 
substances — one  wave-motion,  and  another  something  else! 
Henee,  the  undulatory  theory  of  sound,  even  in  air,  breaks 
down  of  its  own  inherent  weakness. 

Should  it  be  said,  here,  that  in  the  propagation  of  sound 
through  iron  the  particles  may  move  "  to  and  fro,"  producing 
the  necessary  "amplitude"  as  required  in  all  wave-motion, 
but  not  sufficiently  to  be  visible  under  a  microscope,  then  I 
answer  that  such  invisible  and  infinitesimal  motion,  even  if  it 
occurs,  would  not  constitute  sound  capable  of  addressing  the 
human  ear,  because  the  eye  is  admittedly  one  of  the  most  re- 
fined and  sensitive  of  the  avenues  to  perception;  and  this  being 
so,  these  supposed  motions  of  the  iron  particles,  which  can  be 
so  easily  heard  by  the  unassisted  ear,  should,  if  they  take  place 
at  all,  be  plainly  visible  to  the  naked  eye!  But  as  this  assumed 
"  amplitude"  or  motion  of  the  particles  cunnot  be  seen  when 
the  sight  is  magnified  a  million-fold,  it  is  conclusive  evidence, 
on  its  face,  that  such  motion,  if  it  takes  place  at  all,  is  a  million 
times  too  trifling  to  be  heard!  Thus,  again,  does  wave-motion 
in  iron  break  down;  and  with  it,  as  a  necessary  corollary,  wave- 
motion  in  air. — Dr.  Hall,  in  the  "  Problem  of  Human  Life," 
p.  339. 


THE  NATURE  AND  PHENOMENA  OF  SOUND.       229 

CMiormous  wave-lengths,  Laving  an  infinitesimal  ampli- 
tude that  is  purely  imaginary,  and  which  exists  only  in 
theory. 

Q.  89.  What  is  the  general  conclusion  to  be  drawn 
from  this  catechetical  investigation  of  the  nature  and 
phenomena  of  sound  ? 

A.  From  the  various  incongruities  of  the  current 
theory  and  necessarily  attaching  to  it,  as  developed  in 
these  questions  and  answers,  notwithstanding  the  wis- 
dom of  ages  and  the  ripest  scholarship  in  science  the 
world  has  ever  known  have  been  applied  to  its  formula- 
tion and  defense,  it  follows  rationally  that  such  a  theory 
cannot  be  true.  While  the  harmonious  consistency  and 
the  internal  evidence  of  correctness  which  attach  to  the 
substantial  theory,  as  here  set  forth  at  its  very  first  form- 
ulation into  a  text-book,  would  seem  to  indicate  to  a 
logical,  scientific,  and  unbiased  mind  that  such  a  system 
of  acoustical  science  cannot  be  false. 


[We  add  the  following,  referred  to  in  one  of  the  previ- 
ous chapters,  as  a  specimen  of  Dr.  Hall's  method  of 
solving  physical  problems:] 

HYDROSTATIC  PKESSURE— A  MECHANICAL 
PARADOX. 

NEW  YORK,  Oct.  11,  1886. 
A.  WilfordHall,  Ph.  D.,  LL.  D.: 

DEAR  SIR, — Will  you  kindly  give  the  readers  of  the 
Scientific  Arena  a  rational  explanation  of  hydrostatic 
pressure?  The  problem  maybe  stated  substantially  thus: 
Suppose  a  frictioriless  piston  of  one  square  inch  super- 
ficial area  entering  a  tank  full  of  water.  Now,  if  I  press 
my  finger  against  this  piston  to  the  extent  of  one  pound, 
I  produce  a  pressure  of  one  pound  upon  every  superficial 
inch  of  the  inner  surface  of  the  tank,  as  well  as  upon  the 
surface  of  every  object  immersed  in  the  contained  water, 


230  THE  SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

even  should  such  objects  amount  to  tens  of  thousands  of 
square  feet  of  tinfoil,  so  separated  that  the  water  may 
circulate  freely  between  the  sheets. 

This  problem  is  appropriately  styled  the  "hydrostatic 
paradox/'  and,  no  doubt,  involves  the  most  profound 
mystery  of  any  problem  known  to  physical  science. 
Having  failed  to  find  an  explanation  of  this  enigma  in 
any  work  on  physics,  I  appeal  to  you  as  the  one  most 
likely,  in  my  opinion,  to  solve  it.  By  giving  it  your 
early  and  careful  consideration  you  will  greatly  oblige 
me  as  well  as  render  a  most  valuable  service  to  the  sci- 
entific world,  Yours  very  cordially, 

DR.  HENRY  A.  MOTT. 

REPLY  BY  THE   EDITOR. 

THE  problem  of  hydrostatic  pressure  is  truly  the  prob- 
lem of  problems  in  physics,  and  its  rational  solution  is 
unquestionably  of  the  greatest  importance  to  the  scien- 
tific world.  It  is  every  way  fitting,  therefore,  that  this 
solution  should  appear  first  in  the  columns  of  the  Scien- 
tific Arena,  and  we  are  glad  that  Dr.  Mott,  led  by  his 
very  careful  investigations  square  up  against  this  prob- 
lem, should  so  judiciously  have  thought  of  this  journal. 
We  shall,  therefore,  try  as  briefly  as  may  be  to  give  him 
and  our  readers  what  we  believe  to  be  the  first  detailed 
scientific  explanation  of  this  supposed  mechanical  para- 
dox ever  published. 

Before  commencing  our  solution  let  us  prepare  the  way 
by  a  gradual  introduction  and  consideration  of  minor  me- 
chanical problems  involving  precisely  similar  results,  but 
so  much  more  simple  or  less  complex  than  the  main 
problem  here  propounded  that  they  are  observed  and 
passed  over  by  physical  investigators  without  at  all  con- 
sidering their  paradoxical  character.  Take,  for  exam- 
ple, the  simplest  of  all  facts  in  mechanics — if  we  press 
down  a  pound  weight  on  tv\;o  sheets  of  paper  lying  one  on 
the  other,  we  manifestly  press  two  pounds  on  the  two 


THE  NATURE  AND  PHENOMENA  OF  SOUND.       231 

sheets  of  paper,  since  the  actual  pressure  is  substantially 
the  same  on  each,  the  transfer  of  the  pound  pressure 
being  direct  from  the  one  to  the  other.  If  instead  of  two 
sheets  of  paper  we  press  one  pound  upon  Webster's  Una- 
bridged Dictionary,  consisting  of  1000  sheets  of  paper 
closely  piled  one  upon  another,  it  is  evident  that  we  press 
one  pound  on  each  separate  sheet  of  paper  constituting 
the  book,  thus  making  the  pressure  on  all  the  sheets  1000 
pounds.  Nay,  this  is  not  all;  each  sheet  of  paper  not 
only  receives  the  pound  pressure  transferred  from  the  one 
above  it,  but  each  sheet  below  retransfers  back  upon  the 
sheet  above  it,  by  reaction,  the  same  pound  pressure  it 
had  received,  making  one  pound  of  actual  pressure  on 
each  side  of  each  leaf  of  the  book,  or  2000  pounds  press- 
ure in  all.  This  is  no  less  apparently  paradoxical  than 
the  more  complex  problem  involved  in  hydrostatic  press- 
ure acting  in  all  directions  upon  the  inner  surface  of  an 
inclosed  tank  of  water  by  the  movement  of  a  piston  as 
described.  Indeed,  there  is  no  more  real  mystery  in- 
volved in  such  a  complex  mechanical  effect,  when  fully 
understood,  than  in  the  fact  of  the  simplest  mechanical 
action  and  reaction,  such,  for  example,  as  if  we  press  one 
pound  with  our  finger  against  a  table,  the  table  must 
press  one  pound  against  our  finger,  thus  making  two 
pounds  of  actual  pressure. 

The  whole  problem,  as  presented  by  Dr.  Mott,  will  be 
found  involved  in  this  simple  law  of  mechanics:  that  ac- 
tion and  reaction  are  always  and  of  necessity  equal,  and 
therefore  that  reaction  is  a  simple  duplication  of  action 
and  a  necessary  repetition  of  the  original  force  of  such 
action,  however  many  times  transferred  from  body  to 
body  by  means  of  the  various  mechanical  powers  such  as 
lever,  wedge,  screw,  incline  plane,  pulley,  etc.,  all  of 
which  are  but  mechanical  modifications  of  the  lever  and 
its  effects.  The  man  who  can  solve  the  simple  paradox 
of  the  one  pound  pressure  of  his  finger  against  the  table 


232  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

producing  one  pound  pressure  of  the  table  against  his 
finger,  can  master  this  mighty  hydrostatic  paradox  or 
any  other  complexity  in  mechanics,  as  will  soon  appear. 

But  before  coming  to  the  details  of  hydrostatic  or  fluid 
pressure  infinitely  repeated,  let  us  try  further  to  prepare 
the  reader's  mind  for  the  more  mysterious  phase  of  the 
problem  by  simpler  stages  of  this  fundamental  law  of  ac- 
tion and  reaction,  and  thus  show  how  its  duplication  and 
repetition  may  be  extended  on  ad  infinitum,  and  still  be 
as  simple  as  if  but  transferred  a  single  time  from  our 
finger  to  the  table,  and  by  reaction  from  the  table  to  our 
finger,  thus  duplicating  the  pressure  once. 

Take,  for  example,  a  number  of  common  spring-bal- 
ances hooked  one  to  another,  as  a  step  toward  these 
minor  illustrations.  Now  it  is  evident  if  we  pull  one 
pound  on  the  end  balance,  supposing  the  series  to  lie  at 
zero  on  a  frictionless  table,  we  will  pull  one  pound  on 
each  and  every  balance  in  the  string,  and  the  dial  or 
graduated  scale  of  each  balance  will  record  one  pound 
even  should  the  chain  of  instruments  be  a  mile  long. 
This  is  a  beautiful  illustration  of  the  endless  effect  of  ac- 
tion and  reaction  without  the  slightest  loss  of  force,  if 
the  mechanical  conditions  are  favorable.  One  of  these 
mechanical  conditions  for  the  registering  of  one  pound 
by  each  balance,  is  the  fact  that  the  mechanical  motion 
of  the  pound  pull  must  be  duplicated  for  each  balance 
added,  since  such  motion  or  distance  traveled  by  the 
pound  pressure,  represents  the  work  done  upon  each 
spring  in  causing  its  duplicate  registry  of  this  same 
pound. 

The  problem  thus  illustrated  involves  the  same  prin- 
ciple in  mechanics  as  the  raising  of  a  hundred-inch 
piston,  entering  a  tank  of  water  and  loaded  with  ono 
hundred  pounds,  by  pressing  down  one  pound  on  a  one- 
inch  piston  entering  the  same  tank.  The  large  piston 
will  be  raised  only  one-hundredth  as  far  as  the  small  piston 


THE  NATURE  AND   PHENOMENA   OF   SOUND.  23$ 

is  pressed  into  the  tank,  on  the  universal  law  of  leverage, 
that  what  is  gained  in  power  must  be  lost  in  motion. 
But  this  forms  no  part  of  the  explanation  of  the  great 
problem  of  hydrostatic  pressure,  as  some  have  mistak- 
enly supposed.  Such  pressure  involves  no  appreciable 
mechanical  work,  since  it  involves  only  an  infinitesimal 
motion  among  the  particles  of  the  fluid  employed.  Let 
us  illustrate  the  real  parodox  in  the  case  by  the  imper- 
fect action  of  a  system  of  levers  whose  ends  simply  press, 
but  which  do  not  move  so  as  to  perform  mechanical 
work. 

Take  a  series  of  rigid,  straight  levers  with  fulcrums  in 
the  center,  and  with  their  connected  ends  hinged  to  each 
other,  the  end  of  the  last  lever  in  the  system  being  pre- 
vented from  moving  by  a  stop,  as  shown  in  the  accom- 
panying cut.  By  a  careful  examination  of  this  diagram 


I  .  ! 

a 

e 

i 

.    \ 

S 

e 

*       1 

.    I 

|T  —  .10)     os 

(Q) 

~5v 

jp 

I 

Co) 

I 

Co" 

(<* 

^" 

a 

n 

1 

the  student  of  physics  will  see  the  law  of  action  and  re- 
action exemplified-in  its  simplest  as  well  as  in  its  most 
intricate  relations  to  mechanics,  and  thus  better  than  in 
any  other  way  have  his  mind  prepared  for  the  true  solu- 
tion of  the  hydrostatic  paradox  in  hand,  and  for  a  com- 
prehension of  the  real  form  of  mechanical  power  which 
applies  directly  to  that  problem. 

Referring  to  our  diagram,  let  us  for  the  moment  con- 
fine our  experiment  to  the  first  lever,  extending  from  a 
to  b,  and  let  us  suppose  it  to  be  frictionless  as  it  hinges 
on  the  fulcrum  at  1,  with  its  end  at  b  fixed.  Now  if  we 
press  down  with  our  finger  one  pound  at  «,  we  just  as 
certainly  press  up  one  pound  against  the  fixed  support  at 
b,  while  with  equal  certainty  we  press  down  two  pounds 
at  the  fulcrum  afc  1,  thus  making  four  pounds  of  pressure 
on  that  lever.  But  this  is  not  all:  by  reaction  the  end  of 


234  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

the  lever  at  a  presses  upward  against  our  finger  precisely 
with  the  same  force  that  our  finger  presses  downward 
upon  it,  thus  making  two  pounds  of  pressure  at  that 
point.  The  same,  of  course,  must  occur  between  the 
other  end  of  the  lever  and  its  stop,  the  two  surfaces  of 
contact  mutually  pressing  a  pound  apiece  against  each; 
other;  while  the  pin  in  the  fulcrum,  at  1,  returns  by  re-- 
action against  the  lever  the  same  two  pounds  of  pressure 
there  borne  down  upon  said  fulcrum,  thus  fairly  and  me- 
chanically producing  eight  pounds  of  actual  pressure 
through  that  lever  by  the  communication  of  a  single 
pound  downward  pressure  at  a.  How  can  there  be  im- 
agined a  more  startling  paradox  than  this? 

But  the  enigma  becomes  more  complex  and  mysterious 
when  we  discover  that  if  the  first  lever  is  connected  with 
a  series  of  similar  frictionless  levers,  the  same  eight 
pounds  of  'mechanical  pressure  will  be  transferred  and 
produced  in  each  lever  added  to  the  series,  first  down  at 
a,  then  up  at  l>,  down  at  c,  up  at  d;  first  action,  then  re- 
action, and  so  on  to  the  end  of  the  series,  even  should 
the  system  of  levers  extend  for  miles,  and  should  they  be 
so  connected  as  to  operate  in  all  conceivable  directions — 
up,  down,  laterally,  diagonally,  criss-cross,  etc.  We  have 
-thus  not  the  slightest  difficulty  in  seeing  how  a  tank 
could  be  ingeniously  filled  with  minute  levers  and  ful- 
crums,  and  even  by  connected  systems  of  levers  piled  on 
systems  by  which  an  approximate  paradoxical  pressure 
in  all  directions  could  be  produced  similar  to  the  one  in 
hand. 

But  this  is  by  no  means  the  solution  of  this  great  prob- 
lem, nor  does  it  begin  to  grapple  with  the  mystery  in- 
volved, although  by  such  a  conclusive  illustration  of  the 
unlimited  duplication  of  pressure  by  action  and  reaction, 
the  reader's  mind  is  no  doubt  by  this  time  thoroughly 
prepared  for  the  real  solution  when  it  comes.  Plainly 
nothing  similar  to  rigid  levers  could  be  imagined 


THE  NATURE  AND  PHENOMENA  OF  SOUND.       235 

as  existing  among  the  infinitesimal  particles  of  any  fluid 
substance  in  order  to  cause  an  infinite  duplication  of  the 
pressure  between  them,  and  by  which  they  are  forced 
apart  and  separated  in  all  directions. 

Since  leverage,  proper,  will  not  solve  the  problem, 
what  other  form  of  the  mechanical  powers  will  meet  the 
case,  since  it  is  manifest  that  it  can  only  be  accomplished 
by  mechanical  power  in  some  form?  We  answer  that 
the  mystery  is  completely  and  satisfactorily  solved  by  the 
action  of  the  wedge,  and  that  it  can  be  solved  by  no  other 
form  of  mechanical  power. 

Let  us  first  show  the  application  of  this  form  of  mech- 
anism to  the  separation  of  two  objects  only,  before  ex- 
tending the  princrple.  We  have  first  to  suppose  a  per- 
fectly frictionless  wedge  of  infinite  taper,  entered  between 
two  frictionless  bodies.  Now  it  is  plain  that  if  a  pound 
force  be  applied  to  this  wedge,  it  will  act  with  a  pound 
pressure  against  each  of  the  two  bodies  in  the  tendency 
to  separate  them.  If  this  frictionless  wedge  should  have 
an  infinite  taper  in  all  directions,  approximately  like  the 
point  of  a  needle,  it  is  plain,  should  it  be  pressed  between 
a  nest  of  frictionless  bodies,  all  touching  it,  that  each  of 
these  bodies  would  be  forced  outwardly  with  the  pound 
of  pressure  the  same  as  if  the  wedge  acted  upon  but  two 
bodies.  Then  let  us  suppose  that  all  of  the  bodies  thus 
pressed  outwardly  are  themselves  also  frictionless  wedges 
of  infinite  taper,  each  entering  between  similar  nests  of 
bodies,  which  again  are  of  the  same  wedge  construction; 
and,  finally,  let  us  suppose  that  every  particle  of  matter, 
to  its  infinitesimal  size,  which  fills  the  tank,  is  itself  a 
frictionless  wedge  of  infinite  taper,  and  at  once  we  see 
how  the  initial  pound  pressure  against  the  first  entering 
wedge-particle  is  duplicated  and  repeated  by  action  and 
reaction  against  every  similar  wedge-shaped  particle  in 
the  tank,  and  consequently  against  every  part  of  the  inner 
surface  of  the  tank  itself,  as  well  as  every  object  within 


236  THE   SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

the  tank  against  which  such  frictionless  wedges  can  come 
into  contact. 

Now  it  is  a  fact  that  a  tank  of  water,  constituted  of  a 
substantially  infinite  number  of  frictionless  particles, 
each  of  infinitesimal  size,  is  practically  made  up  of  just 
such  a  system  of  frictionless  wedges  as  we  have  described, 
since  being  infinitesimal  in  size  they  are  equivalent  to  an 
infinitely  tapering  wedge.  Then  we  have  only  to  begin 
our  experiments  with  an  imaginary  piston  entering  this 
tank,  of  the  diameter  of  a  single  one  of  these  frictionless 
wedges,  and  we  can  see  at  a  glance  how  the  particular 
wedge  against  which  the  piston  is  pressed  with  a  given 
power  must  be  forced  between  other  similar  particles, 
these  between  others,  and  so  on  throughout  the  en- 
tire mass  of  water,  thus  giving  the  full  pressure  of 
the  piston  against  every  infinitesimal  particle  or  wedge 
the  tank  contains,  as  well  as  against  every  similar  par- 
ticle of  the  tank's  surface.  If  this  be  true,  and  if  it 
gives  a  rational  view  of  the  question  with  reference  to 
the  action  of  such  a  piston,  it  is  unquestionably  true  and 
rational  with  reference  to  a  larger  piston,  such  friction- 
less  wedge-pressure  in  all  directions  corresponding  exactly 
to  the  force  applied  to  the  piston  and  the  number  of  in- 
finitesimal wedge-particles  against  ivhich  the  piston  presses. 
This  is  the  solution  and  this  is  the  law  of  hydrostatic 
pressure;  and  thus  only  can  the  apparent  pavadox  be  ex- 
plained. 


CHAPTER  XL 

LIFE. 

QUESTION  1.     What  is  Life?* 

ANSWER.  This  question  is  one  of  the  most  difficult 
ever  propounded  to  the  wisdom  of  the  world — a  question 
to  which  no  satisfactory  answer  can  be  given  without  a 
recognition  of  the  existence  of  immaterial  substance  in 
being.  It  stands  next  to  the  question:  What  is  God? 
Man's  encouragement  to  find  it  out  by  searching  lies  in 
the  fact  that  life  is  not  necessarily  infinite.  An  at- 
tempted investigation  into  its  nature  is  therefore  not 
necessarily  a  piece  of  presumption  on  the  part  of  finite 
man.  Such  searching  after  the  nature  of  life  and  the 
origin  of  its  existence  becomes  presumptuous  folly  only 
when  man  attempts  it  without  acknowledging  the  eternal 
existence  of  a  Personal  One—  the  Fountain  and  Giver 
of  all  life. 

Q.  2.  Have  all  philosophers  who  have  believed  in  the 
absolute  existence  of  a  personal  God  held  correct  views  of 
life? 

*  In  the  author's  college- days  he  listened  to  an  elaborate  lec- 
ture upon  this  subject  by  a  very  learned  educator.  The  pro- 
found speaker  introduced  his  theme  with  the  above  question: 
"  What  is  life?"  Continuing,  he  remarked:  "We  know  noth- 
ing of  life  except  by  its  phenomena."  In  the  course  of  his  ad- 
dress he  reached  the  climax . of  his. circular  syllogism  in  the 
expression:  "Life  is  action."  He  failed  to  see;  at  least,  he 
failed  to  tell  us  that  "  action  "  is  "  phenomena." 


238      <  THE   SUBSTANTIAL    PHILOSOPHY. 

A.     They  have  not. 

Q.  3.  What  has  been  their  most  fundamental  er- 
ror? 

A.  They  have  virtually  denied  the  proper  substantial- 
ity of  God's  being. 

Q.  4.     What  further? 

A.  They  have  failed  to  conceive  of  finite  life  as  a 
form  of  entitative  being  and  a  substantial  force-element 
ill  the  animated  portion  of  creation. 

Q.  5.  What  are  the  present  conflicting  theories  of  the 
origin  and  nature  of  life? 

A.  As  to  the  origin  of  life  these  theories  separate 
themselves  into  two  classes,  viz:  The  Spontaneous  De- 
velopment theory  and  that  of  Biogenesis. 

Q.  6.     What  is  the  spontaneous  development  theory? 
A.     That  life  is  the  product  of  matter. 

Q.  7.     Who  have  been  its  leading  advocates? 

A.  Thales  in  his  water  cosmogony  taught  that  water 
is  the  mother  of  all  living. 

Dr.  Bastian  of  England  is  probably  the  fairest  modern 
representative  of  this  spontaneous  theory.  He  belongs 
to  what  is  known  as  the  school  of  heterogenists  who 
teach  that  life  is  generated  in  the  womb  of  matter. 

Prof.  Haeckel  of  Berlin  is  another  very  able  advocate 
of  this  doctrine,  although  he  employs  different  termi- 
nology in  the  expression  of  his  views,  and  the  advocacy 
of  his  position.  He  defines  life  as  "  material  atoms 
placed  together  in  a  most  varied  manner." 

Herbert  Spencer  defines  his  concept  of  life  as  "the 
continuous  adjustment  of  internal  arrangements  to  ex- 
ternal relations,"  or  "perfect  correspondence." 

Q.  8.  What  modern  philosophers  are  upon  record  as 
over  against  this  general  theory  of  spontaneous  genera- 
tion? 


LIFE.<  239 

A.  Tyndall  and  Huxley  of  England,  Ulrici  and 
Lotze  of  Germany,  Dr.  McCosh  of  Princeton,  and  Joseph 
Cook  of  all  around  the  world  have  opposed  it  without  the 
ability  to  do  it  very  much  harm  or  to  give  the  world  any- 
thing very  much  better.  While  these  great  men,  as  well 
as  the  respective  schools  of  philosophy  which  they  repre- 
sent, are  antagonistic  to  each  other,  they  all  agree  that 
"  life  can  come  only  from  previous  life." — Omne  vivum 
ex  vivo. 

Harvey's  proverb — Omne  animal  ex  ovo — although  sat- 
isfactory for  awhile,  soon  lost  its  superficial  plausibility 
after  men  became  thoughtful  enough  to  inquire  as  to 
who  produced  the  seed  or  laid  the  egg, 

Dr.  Beale  has  satisfied  himself  and  some  others  that 
life  starts  in  the  bioplasts*  or  little  specks  of  protapolsm 

*  Such  bioplasts  are  always  busy  at  work  in  building  up  new 
tissue  or  repairing  old,  and  can  be  seen  under  a  powerful  glass, 
moving  hither  and  thither  as  things  of  life,  picking  up  and  dis- 
tributing atoms  of  nutrition  to  strengthen  muscle,  tendon,  vein, 
nerve,  etc.,  and  then  these  great  authorities  apparently  conclude 
that  they  have  struck  the  keynote  to  the  solution,  and  have 
reached  the  lowest  or  basic  stratum  of  life-substance  in  the 
human  organism,  thus  framing  an  impregnable  breastwork 
and  barrier,  as  they  suppose,  to  the  onslaughts  of  materialism. 
How  vain  is  this  hope!  Not  a  bioplast  leaves  the  body  at  death. 
These  atoms  of  so-called  life-substance  are  but  a  part  of  the 
physical  structure,  and  cease  to  move  at  dissolution,  the  same 
as  do  the  larger  organs  of  the  body,  and  consequently  have 
nothing  more  to  do  writh  the  true  solution  of  our  problem  than 
have  the  veins  and  arteries,  with  their  myriad  blood-corpuscles, 
which  also  cease  to  act  at  death.  Bioplasts,  with  all  the  useful 
knowledge  they  have  furnished  us,  as  to  the  formation  of  or- 
ganic tissue,  do  not  touch  the  question  of  life  itself — what  it  is, 
how  it  exists,  or  what  becomes  of  it — and  no  more  meet  the  ob- 
jections urged  by  the  materialist  than  would  the  anylysis  of  the 
outer  cuticle  of  our  flesh.  Hence  every  argument  employed  in 
illustrating  the  work  of  the  bioplasts,  as  a  refutation  of  materi- 
alism, is  so  much  labor  lost. — "  Problem  of  Human  Life,"  p.  46. 


* 

240  THE  SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

seen  to  be  at  work  constructing  new  cells  and  tissue  in 
all  organic  forms  of  being. 

Q.  9.     What  is  radically  wrong  with  all  these  theories? 

A.  They  are  defective  in  that  they  have  no  starting 
point — no  genesis.*  The  life  of  the  creature  can^come 
only  from  previous  life.  There  is  no  primordial  previous 
life  except  the  life  of  the  Creator.  He  who  adopts  the 
proper  theory  or  truth  of  biogenesis  will  find  himself 
carried  back  by  its  inexorable  logic  to  the  unavoidable 
conclusion  that  all  life,  whatever  it  may  be  as  to  its 

*"  No  change  of  substance,  no  modification  of  environment, 
no  chemistry,  no  electricity,  nor  any  form  of  energy,  nor  any 
evolution  can  endow  any  single  atom  of  the  mineral  world  with 
the  attribute  of  Life." — Drumrnond's  "  Nat.  Law,"  p.  68. 

That  the  life  principle  of  living  organic  bodies  is  not  simply 
phenomenal,  but  that  it  is  a  distinctive  entity,  is  a  proposition 
that  has  so  many  proofs  in  nature,  and  goes  so  far  in  explanation 
of  other  facts,  that  it  seems  remarkable  that  a  contrary  assump- 
tion could  be  held  by  scientists.  But  still  it  is  set  forth  by 
biologists  as  simply  a  resultant  of  organization  and  the  play  of 
chemical  foice,  like  as  growth  is  the  result  of  assimilation,  and 
combination  that  of  affinity. 

This  latter  assumption  is  incidental  to  efforts  in  other  direc- 
tions, and  comes  not  from  any  intelligent  conclusion,  when  the 
subject  of  life  is  made  that  of  primary  or  specific  investigation. 
It  is  wonderful  what  vagaries  men  will  fall  into  when  they  are 
fanatically  disposed,  or  intent  in  theorizing. 

The  preservation  of  species  cannot  be  satisfactorily  accounted 
for  other  than  by  reference  to  the  distinctiveness  of  the  life 
force,  which  controls  and  conditions  assimilation  and  develop- 
ment. Nor  is  the  growth  of  the  plant,  or  body  of  the  animal 
alone  thus  conditioned;  the  seed  and  ovum  are  so  as  well. 

When  all  allowance  is  made  for  modifying  circumstances, 
which  occasion  varieties  in  species,  there  is  yet  found  a  bound- 
ary, up  to  which  alone  any  encroachment  can  come;  and,  as 
soon  as  the  modifying  causes  are  removed,  a  relapse  takes  place 
and  the  sharp  characteristics  of  the  species  are  again  estab- 
lished. This  tendency  to  relapse  has  been  the  subject  of  bat- 
tling effort  with  hybridizers. 


LIFE.  241 

essence,  must  have  come  originally  from  a  Life  that 
never  had  beginning  back  of  itself — it  must  have  come 
from  a  Self-existent  God,  and  as  a  vital  spark  of  His  un- 
diminishable  Self.  Men  who  fail  to  see  this  truth,  or 
seeing,  hesitate  to  apply  it  in  all  its  logical  bearings,  find 
themselves  floundering  upon  a  shoreless  sea  with  nothing 
to  grasp  but  the  floating  forms  of  false  philosophy.  Even 
Prof.  Drummond  of  Edinburgh,  after  a  very  able  dis- 
cussion of  the  question  of  life  and  its  origin  through  two 
extended  chapters  of  his  good  book,  simmers  his  philos- 
ophy down  to  a  definition  of  life  not  entirely  satisfactory 
to  n?en  who  are  thirsting  after  a  more  entitative  and  en- 
during substance.  "  To  live  is  to  correspond,  and  to  cor- 
respond is  to  live,"  says  the  rising  young  philosopher  of 
old  Caledonia. 

Dr.  Frederick  A.  Eouch  gets  much  nearer  to  the  truth 
in  his  Anthropology.  He  says  (on  p.  22)  that  life  is  a 
plastic  power  placed  in  matter  by  the  Divine  will,  and 
can  no  more  be  seen  with  the  eye  than  any  other  power. 

Q.  10.     What  is  still  better? 

A.     The  teachings  of  the  Substantial  Philosophy. 

Q.  11.     What  are  its  teachings  upon  this  point? 

While,  on  the  other  hand,  we  observe  the  various  life  proc- 
esses to  be  very  similar,  the  results  are  very  dissimilar.  The 
food  of  animals  and  their  life  habits  may  be  identical;  yet  their 
specific  characteristics  are  absolute  in  distinctness.  The  man,  the 
dog,  and  the  cat,  may  eat,  and  live  on  precisely  the  same  food; 
and  be  subject  to  the  same  life  habits;  but  yet  how  distinct  are 
their  specific  characteristics!  Hybridizing  efforts  superadded 
will  avail  nothing  in  breaking  down  the  distinction.  Away 
back  of  the  forms  in  the  development  is  to  be  found  the  cause 
of  this  distinction.  It  is  in  the  life  principle  which  is  resident  in 
the  seed  or  ovum.  When  a  cell  is  nucleated,  as  a  condition  of 
new  being,  this  nucleation  is  not  accidental,  nor  yet  the  result 
simply  of  favorably  disposed  surroundings,  or  force  of  habit. 
As  a  condition  precedent  there  must  be  a  life  principle. — 
Chancellor  John  Kost,  M.  D.,  LL.  D.,  in  Arena,  Vol.  I.,  p.  68, 


242  THE  SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

A.  It  affirms  that  life  is  the  highest  form  of  force; 
that  all  finite  life  is  an  efflux  from  the  Divine,  Self-ex- 
istent One.* 

Q.  12.  Is  each  living  individual  a  distinct  and  sepa- 
rate creation? 

A.  God  is  the  creator  of  each  and  every  individual  in 
the  domain  of  finite  life,  but  after  creating  the  first  parents 
of  each  distinctive  species,  by  a  creative  act  of  bis  sov- 
ereign will  through  the  creative  word  of  his  omnipotent 
power,  in  the  creative  transmission  directly  of  his  own 
substantial  life,  he  now  carries  forward  his  creative  work 
through  the  agency  of  progenitors.  Hence,  livirg  beings 
are  now  created  mediately.  This  process  of  propagating 

*  It  is  a  universal  axiom  of  science  that  "  from  nothing,  noth- 
ing comes."  As  this  incorporeal  organism  has  been  demon- 
strated to  be  an  entity— a  real  counterpart  of  the  physical 
structure,  since  it  is  only  through  it  that  inheritance  can  take 
place  and  transmissions  can  occur — it  must,  therefore,  be  a  part 
of  some  actual  substance  which  had  a  previous  existence;  and 
as  the  existence  of  a  God  has  been  scientifically  demonstrated, 
who  was  capable  of  producing  living  organisms  out  of  inorganic 
matter,  such  a  God,  therefore,  must  be  a  substantial  and  intelli- 
gent entity.  Just  as  certain  as  that  our  material  organism 
necessarily  had  to  come  from  a  source  or  fountain  of  pre-exist- 
ing matter,  just  so  sure  must  this  mental  and  vital  organism 
pervading  every  living  creature  have  come  from  a  source  or 
fountain  of  pre-existing  mind  and  life. 

"I  lay  down  the  position,  without  the  fear  of  its  ever  being 
successfully  met,  that  no  substantial  effect  can -be  produced  on 
any  object  without  an  absolute  substance  of  some  kind  connect- 
ing the  cause  with  the  effect I  conceive  it  a  principle  of 

philosophy  that  life  and  mind  are  substantial  entities  as  really 
and  truly  as  are  the  most  ponderable  physical  objects." — "  Prob- 
lem of  Human  Life,"  p.  494.  "  I  believe  that  until  this  great 
underlying  iruth  shall  be  duly  comprehended  and  recognized, 
physiologists,  with  all  their  laborious  and  histologic  researches, 
even  with  the  most  powerful  microscopes  to  aid  them,  n-ill 
never  penetrate  even  the  cuticle  of  science  as  regards  the  true 
cause  of  physiological  phenomena," — p.  466.  "  As  organic  life  is 


LIFE.  4o 

the  species  results  from  the  fact  that  the  life  first  im- 
parted to  the  parental  head  of  the  species  involved  the 
possibility  of  and  tendency  toward  organic  multiplication 
into  numerous  individuals. 

Q.  13.  But  is  not  Substantialism,  according  to  the 
above,  a  mere  revival  of  the  old  doctrine  of  realism,  as  it 
appeared  in  the  arena  of  philosophical  war  during  the  Mid- 
dle Ages? 

A.  After  the  Substantial  Philosophy  becomes  a  fully 
formulated  system,  it  will  be  found  to  involve  much 
truth  previously  taught  in  other  systems  of  philosophy, 
even  as  Christianity  incorporated  doctrines  previously 
held  in  Judaism,  and  as  Protestantism  conserved  and 
carried  forward  much  that  was  true  and  valuable  in  the 
Church  of  Kome;  but,  like  Christianity  and  Protestant- 
ism, Substantialism  brings  forward  and  announces  a  dis- 
tinct and  revolutionary  principle  never  previously  an- 

a  substantial  entity  and  could  only  come  from  a  pre-existing 
fountain  of  life,  hence  the  solution  is  clear  that  the  life  and 
mental  powers  of  every  organic  creature  originated  primordially 
as  infinitesimal  atoms  of  God's  own  self-existent,  vital  and 
mental  being;  and  thus  it  becomes  as  naturally  and  consistently 
a  scientific  solution  of  the  origin  of  life  as  that  the  existence  of 
God  [as  the  author  claims  to  have  shown  on  p.  444]  is  an  un- 
avoidable scientific  truth," — p.  472. 

Thus  the  way  is  logically  made  clear  for  the  assumption  that 
the  vital  and  mental  organism  of  each  living  creature  consists 
of  a  mere  drop  from  out  the  fountain  of  God's  own  infinite 
vital  and  mental  substance.  To  the  primal  and  miraculously 
created  parents  of  each  species  the  Creative  Will  must  then 
have  transferred  an  infinitesimal  drop  of  His  own  being,  con- 
stituting not  only  the  real  entities  of  these  primal  parents,  but 
the  perpetual  specific  germ  for  transmitting  the  same  entity  to 
offspring,  and  the  only  part  of  an  organic  being  not  liable  to 
displacement  and  substitution,  as  so  clearly  shown  in  the  pre- 
ceding chapter,  while  the  primordial  stock  of  knowledge  given 
to  the  parents  of  each  species,  necessary  to  their  primitive  con- 
ditions of  life,  was  also  but  a  drop  out  of  His  own  infinite 
intelligence. — "  Problem  of  Human  Life,"  p.  469, 


244  THE   SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

noimced  to  the  world  in  any  form.  It  is,  therefore,  the 
revival  of  no  defunct  hypothesis,  theory  or  system  of 
philosophy.  While  it  is  not  Kealism,  as  taught  in  the 
days  of  Abalard,  as  over  against  Nominalism,  Substan- 
tialism  involves  realism  in  its  moderate,  positive,  and 
proper  sense.  It  accepts  of  the  formula,  universalia  in 
re — the  concrete  general  in  the  particular — and  insists 
that  reality  is  predicable  of  potentiality;  yet  it  looks  with 
grave  suspicion  upon  conceptualism,  fearing  that  that 
term  is  designed  to  convey  the  false  idea  that  concrete 
universals  are  not  real  until  a  subjective  concept  gives 
them  reality.  While  the  Substantial  Philosophy  involves 
proper  realism,  its  realism  is  in  such  intimate  relation 
with  all  truth  that  it  is  equally  antithetic  and  antago- 
nistic to  the  Nominalism  of  Rascelin,  the  Pantheism  of 
Spinoza,  the  Idealism  of  Berkeley,  the  Sensationalism  of 
Locke,  and  the  whole  general  school  of  Materialism 
across  the  continent  and  throughout  the  world. 

Q.  14.  In  how  many  spheres  or  kingdoms  does  this 
God-given  life  manifest  itself  in  Nature? 

A.  Three.  As  the  different  rays  of  light  are  produc- 
tive of  different  colors,  so  the 

"  Bright  effluence  of  bright  essence  increate," 
according  to  the  subtsance  of  the  Divine  Nature  and  the 
pleasure  of  the  Divine  Will,  passes  into  different  orders 
of  animate  beings — vegetable,  animal  and  human.* 

Q.  15.  What  are  the  general  lines  of  distinction  be- 
tween these  three? 

A.  The  vegetable  has  the  least  possibilities  and  the 
most  limited  environments;  the-  animal  has  a  higher 
plane  of  existence,  it  has  both  life  and  a  low  order  of 
mentality,  and  consequently  a  larger  circle  of  correspond- 

*  The  author  is  not  now  treating  of  angelic  being,  neither  of 
Christianity,  whicli  is  a  higher  form  of  humanity,  as  shown  in 
the  last  three  chapters  of  this  volume. 


LIFE.  '  245 

encies;  the  human  has  life  involving  all  the  grand  pos- 
sibilities of  the  finite,  culminating  in  that  form  of 
being  which  stands  by  the  threshold  of  the  infinite  and 
next  to  the  throne  of  the  Divine. 

Q.  16.  But  did  not  God  also  create  the  rocks  of  the 
earth  and  the  stars  of  heaven,  and  if  so,  are  they  not 
also  an  effluence  of  Himself? 

A.  By  Him  all  things  were  made,  and  as  nothing 
could  have  been  created  out  of  nothing,  all  created 
things  must  have  come  as  to  their  primordial  substance 
from  His  substantial  Self.* 

*  In  maintaining  my  position  that  the  universe  was  made  of 
God's  all-pervading  substance,  it  does  not  seem  to  me  unscien- 
tific or  irrational  to  assert  that  even  a  substance  so  highly  at- 
tenuated might  be  condensed  into  a  solid  body,  like  this  earth, 
since  the  great  scientific  investigator,  Dr.  Lockyer,  has  given 
reasons  for  believing  that  all  tangible  substances,  from  platinum 
up  to  the  most  tenuous  gases,  are  resolvable  into  one  single  ele- 
mental substance,  vastly  more  attenuated  than  that  of  hydrogen 
gas.  Would  it  not,  therefore,  beautifully  complete  the  scien- 
tific chain  of  continuity  to  assume  this  sub-element  of  which  all 
worlds  are  constituted,  as  the  first  condensation  of  a  fraction 
of  the  substance  of  God's  exterior  nature,  and  as  His  initial  act 
in  the  process  of  framing  the  corporeal  universe  ?  If  all  mate- 
rial substances  are  absolutely  traceable  to  a  single  element,  far 
beyond  the  reach  of  our  senses,  may  we  not  assume  that  all  sub- 
stances, whether  material  or  immaterial,  might  be  rationally 
traced  one  step  further  and  resolved  into  the  one  primordial  sub- 
stance of  the  Deity  Himself,  from  an  atom  of  which,  in  the  first 
place,  this  sub-element  w^as  condensed,  and  then  out  of  which  all 
other  substances  and  forms  were  made. 

Though  I  verbally  distinguish  between  material  and  immate- 
rial, between  corporeal  and  incorporeal  substances,  one  being 
generally  applied  to  tangible,  and  the  other  to  intangible  things, 
yet  that  does  not  preclude  the  idea  that  the  corporeal  may  have 
been  condensed  from  the  incorporeal  substances  of  Nature.  The 
marvelous  discoveries  of  modern  science,  under  the  investiga- 
tions of  such  physicists  as  Lockyer,  Crookes,  Fairfield,  and 
others,  are  clearly  pointing  to  results  as  wonderful  as  this, 
while  they  all  tend  to  confirm  the  broad  position  first  announced 


246  THE  SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

Q.  17.  What  then  is  the  difference  between  the  living 
and  the  non-living  creature? 

A.  To  the  living  creature  God  has  given  to  have  life 
in  itself;  the  non-living  is  moved  and  manipulated  by  life 
or  some  other  substantial  force  not  vitally  connected 
with  itself. 

Q.  18.  In  what  other  particular  does  the  living  creat- 
ure differ  from  the  non-living? 

A.  The  living  creature  has  organic  being,  while  the 
non-living  holds  its  existence  as  either  a  mechanism  or  in 
mere  element. 

Q.  19.  What  does  Substantialism  teach  concerning 
mechanisms? 

in  my  treatise  on  Sound,  that  even  sonorous  pulses  may  consist 
of  absolute  substance,  in  opposition  to  the  universally  accepted 
theory  of  the  undulating  motion  of  air-waves.  In  view  of  the 
discovery  of  this  single  sub-element  announced  by  Lockyer,  out 
of  which  all  the  grosser  physical  elements  and  substances  have 
been  evolved,  does  not  such  a  grasp  of  the  almost  intangible  ren- 
der the  hypothesis  probable,  aside  from  proof,  that  electricity, 
magnetism,  light,  heat,  gravitation,  and  even  sound  are  but 
other  forms  of  the  same  primordial  substance  out  of  which  this 
sub-element  was  probably  condensed?  *  *  *  While  it  may, 
therefore,  be  rationally  assumed  that  an  incorporeal  substance 
might  be  condensed  into  a  material  form,  by  the  application  of 
Almighty  power,  yet  to  assert  that  something  can  be  made  out 
of  nothing,  even  by  God  Himself,  is  irrational  and  unscientific, 
not  to  use  a  stronger  adjective. 

Since  air  has  been  condensed  by  the  skill  and  power  of  puny 
man,  into  a  permanent  liquid  of  the  gravity  of  water,  and 
through  the  limited  appliances  within  his  reach,  does  it  seem 
"  irrational  "  to  believe  that  an  infinite  God  might  also  condense 
an  incorporeal  substance,  such  as  electricity,  for  instance,  into 
granite  rock,  or  something  equally  dense  ?  And  if  this  be  not 
irrational  nor  insupposable,  does  it  exceed  the  bounds  of  reason 
and  probability  that  the  same  infinite  Artificer  might  condense 
a  mere  atom  of  His  own  omnipresent  but  exterior  substance  into 
a  world  like  this,  and  if  into  one  world,  might  He  not  thus  have 
created  the  universe  ? — "  Problem  of  Human  Life,"  p.  64. 


LIFE.  247 

A.  That  the  outward  form  of  the  mechanism  is  the 
externalization  of  an  ideal  which  originated  elsewhere 
and  had  its  existence  previous  to  its  being  clothed  upon 
in  such  outer  form.* 

Q.  x!0.     In  whom  do  such  ideals  originate? 

A.  They  are  potentially  involved  in  the  substance  of 
the  human  mind  which  came  with  all  its  powers  and 
possibilities  from  God.f 

Q.  21.  Then  God  is  the  primordial  fountain  of  all 
ideals  which  are  given  form  in  mechanisms? 

A.     He  is. 

Q.  22.  Is  God  then  the  originator  of  the  ideal  of  an 
infernal  machine? 

A.  When  God  communicates  of  his  own  substance  in 
the  creation  of  rational  beings  he  delegates  in  and  with 
such  substance  the  possibility  and  the  power  of  perver- 

*  Such  a  conception  would  be  as  impossible,  in  the  very  nat- 
ure of  thtngs,  as  when  looking  upon  a  complicated  time-piece 
to  conceive  of  it  as  having  originally  come  into  existence  by  the 
accidental  falling  together  of  cogwheels,  journals  and  journal- 
boxes,  without  an  intelligent  designer  or  mechanical  constructor. 
It  is  true,  that  individual  time-pieces  now  examined,  may  have 
been  turned  out  by  ingenious  machinery,  and  may  not  have  cost 
a  single  minute's  serious  thought  on  the  part  of  the  mechanic  or 
artisan  who  put  them  together  and  set  them  to  keeping  time. 
But  leaving  this  individual  machine-made  clock  or  watch,  let 
us  go  back  to  its  earliest  progenitor— the  first  clock  or  watch 
that  was  ever  made — and  conceive  of  it,  if  we  can,  coming  into 
existence  by  the  unconscious  mingling  of  journals,  cogwheels, 
etc.—4'  Problem,"  p.  362. 

f  No  watch,  engine  or  other  device  was  ever  conceived  by 
man  that  was  not  already  perfected  in  the  mind  of  God,  and 
which  did  not  already  exist  as  a  reality — a  fact  of  creation  in 
the  spirit- realm.  In  this  way  we  can  truly  believe  that  "there 
is  nothing  new  under  the  sun."  The  inventor  in  conceiving  of 
a  new  machine,  only  grasps  with  his  soul- eyes,  in  his  imagina- 
tion or  his  dreams,  the  real  wheels,  and  levers,  and  springs  that 
already  exist  incorporeally — Microcosm  Vol  II. ,  p,  36. 


248  THE  SUBSTANTIAL    PHILOSOPHY. 

tion  to  the  extent  that  such  rational  creatures  may  be- 
come either  devils  or  their  angels.  Thus  man's  power 
and  possibility  of  working  out  the  invention  of  a  good 
thing  for  a  good  purpose  may  be  perverted  in  the  con- 
ception of  an  ideal,  and  clothe  it  with  an  infernal  ma- 
chine to  execute  an  infernal  purpose. 

Q.  23.     Then  God  is  not  responsible  for  the  results? 

A.  God  glorifies  himself  in  withholding  no  good  thing 
from  man,  and  man  is  responsible  for  any  perverse  use 
he  makes  of  the  divine  gifts,  and  will  be  held  morally  ac- 
countable. 

Q.  24.  What  becomes  of  the  ideal  when  the  mechan- 
ism is  destroyed? 

A.  As  no  outward  power  can  compel  the  ideal  to 
clothe  itself  in  a  mechanical  form,  so  the  destruction  of 
the  latter  does  not  involve  the  destruction  of  the  ^former 
— the  ideal  remains  intact. 

Q.  25.     Has  such  an  ideal  substantial  existence? 

A.  It  is  an  mdellible  impress  self-stamped  upon  the 
subsrantial  mind  in  the  exercise  of  the  God-given  power 
which  the  mind  involves. 

Q.  26.  But  what  becomes  of  the  ideal  when  the 
mental  powers  or  faculties  of  the  person  are  deranged? 

A.  The  ideal  or  impress  is  not  erased  or  absolutely 
obliterated,  yet  it  cannot  be  actualized  or  clothed  upon 
during  any  such  season  of  entire  mental  derangement. 

Q.  27.  What  if  the  mental  faculties  be  all  restored 
again  to  their  normal  working  condition? 

A.  The  ideal  will  also  be  fully  restored  with  a  full 
re-invigoration  of  its  youth — the  impress  will  stand  out 
again  in  its  former  bold  and  beautiful  relief  upon  the 
real  tablet  of  the  possessor's  substantial  mentality. 

Q.  28.  But  what  becomes  of  the  ideal  or  the  impress 
when  the  person  dies? 

A.     If  the  Substantial  Philosophy  be  true,  the  person 


LIFE!.  249 

does  not  really  die,  but  retains  the  essential  integrity  of 
his  organized  substantial  being,  despite  the  throes  and 
threats  of  physical  dissolution.  The  ideal  o/  the  power 
to  renew  it,  under  a  renewal  of  favorable  environments, 
will  accompany  the  person  into  the  state  of  the  dead  and 
exteruialize  itself  again  as  soon  as  the  person  emerges  from 
such  death-state  into  a  broader,  brighter  realm  of  more 
favorable  environments  beyond.* 

Q.  29.  What  does  the  Substantial  Philosophy  teach 
with  reference  to  organisms?! 

*  No  poet  or  musician  ever  grasped  a  rhyme,  conceived  a 
rhythm,  or  dreamt  a  harmony  in  music,  that  did  not  exist  in 
the  mind  of  God  as  a  reality  before  the  world  was,  and  yet  there 
are  ten  thousand  million  new  combinations  of  rhyme,  music 
and  rhythm  in  the  mind  of  that  same  great  fountain  of  all  in- 
tellectuality that  poets  and  musicians  will  never  work  out  till 
they  are  clothed  upon  with  their  psychical  robes,  and  are  in  free 
access  to  their  psychical  environment  unencumbered  by  mortal 
surroundings— Dr.  Hall,  in  Microcoxm. 

This  question  receives  more  special  consideration  in  Chapters 
XIII  and  XIV. 

f  What  forms  the  invisible  pattern  (for  pattern  there  must  be) 
around  which  and  through  which  the  bioplasts  are  guided  in 
their  work  of  constructing  nerves,  muscles,  bones,  ligaments, 
etc.,  and  by  which  they  are  thus  prevented  from  -making  mis- 
takes, substituting  a  nerve  for  an  artery,  a  ligament  for  a 
muscle,  etc.  ?  I  answer  again,  it  is  life,  which,  could  we  see  it 
after  the  body  dies,  would  stand  out  a  transparent  manikin — 
with  every  outline  of  the  human  body  intact — a  perfect  repre- 
sentation of  our  organic  form  in  all  its  parts,  as  would  a  mani- 
kin of  the  arteries,  veins  and  nerves,  could  they  alone  be  lifted 
from  the  body  without  disturbing  their  relative  positions. 
Without  the  aid  of  this  substantial  but  invisible  organism,  the 
working  bioplasts  of  Dr.  Beale  can  no  more  touch  the  problem 
of  life,  than  can  Prof.  Haeckel's  material  atoms  "placed  to- 
gether in  a  most  varied  manner."  Without  this  view,  every  ef- 
fort of  modern  science  and  philosophy  will  fail  to  satisfy  the 
longing,  craving  wants  of  honest  but  doubting  souls,  as  to  a 
rational  solution  of  what  life  is,  and  how  it  is  related  to  an  or- 
ganic structure,  so  as  to  be  viewed  scientifically,  philosophically, 


250  THE  SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

A.  That  all  organisms  have  a  dnal  nature,  and  that 
the  two  are  inter-related  and  vitally  united  when  both 
are  in  their  normal  condition. 

Q.  30.  What  is  the  highest  form  of  such  dual  organ- 
ism? 

and  religiously,  as  a  substantial  basis  for  immortality  and  per- 
sonal identity  in  another  life.  I  have  tried  in  this  chapter  to 
furnish  such  a  solution  of  man's  dual  organism,  with  such  ana- 
logical proofs  drawn  from  Nature  and  illustrations  so  framed 
upon  the  principles  of  science,  philosophy,  and  art,  as  may  give 
a  reasonable  ground  of  hope  to  the  candid  inquirer  that  death 
does  not  end  all,  but  that  though  we  die  yet  shall  we  live — that 
though  the  "  outer  man"  perish,  the  "  inner  man  "  shall  surely 
survive;  and  that  though  our  earthly  house  of  this  tabernacle 
shall  be  dissolved,  we  may  still  hope  for  a^building  of  God,  a 
house  not  made  with  hands,  eternal  in  the  heavens. — "  Problem 
of  Human  Life, "  p.  46. 

I  will  here  repeat  that  it  is  only  by  such  an  inter-related  and 
co-ordinated  organism,  existing  within  and  vitalizing  the  cor- 
poreal structure,  that  any  of  the  phenomena  of  inheritance, 
propagation,  variation,  development,  growth,  reproduction  of 
parts,  and  healing  of  wounds,  can  take  place  in  a  living  creat- 
ure, whether  such  creature  be  high  or  low  in  the  scale  of 
being. 

A  singA?  phenomenon  may  here  be  named  in  addition  to  those 
to  which  I  have  already  referred,  completely  corroborating  this 
hypothesis  of  a  vital  and  mental  organism  residing  within  each 
physical  structure  as  its  counterpart  and  visible  expression, 
while  the  wonderful  fact  of  sensation  will  be  thus  seen  to  de- 
pend wholly  on  this  essential  entity,  which  constitutes  the  real 
identity  of  every  living  creature. 

I  refer  to  the  remarkable  fact  that  amputated  limbs  of  ani- 
mals have  been  frequently  known  to  reproduce  themselves  from 
the  stump  by  a  process  of  mysterious  vital  action  hitherto  re- 
garded by  physiologists  as  wholly  inexplicable.  It  is  simply 
impossible,  on  the  physical  or  purely  monistic  view  of  organic 
beings,  to  tell  why  the  segments  of  a  polyp  will  each  reproduce 
a  perfect  being,  or  why  the  leg  of  a  salamander  when  cut  off 
will  be  reproduced  with  the  foot  and  toes  in  every  respect  per- 
fect. Cases  are  recorded  in  which  a  supernumerary  finger  has 
been  amputated  from  a  child's  hand,  which,  in  time,  would  be 


LIFE.  251 

A.     Man. 

Q.  31.  Then  a  human  individual  is  a  twofold  being 
— an  inner  man  and  an  outer  man? 

A.  Revelation  teaches  this  doctrine,  and  Substantial- 
ism  brings  out  its  scientific  beauty. 

reproduced,  with  the  nail  and  joints  complete.  Who  can  give 
an  explanation  of  these  astonishing  phenomena  based  on  the 
purely  physical  hypothesis  of  organic  being?  Why  should  not  a 
toe  have  been  developed  in  the  place  of  the  child's  finger,  or  an- 
other tail  in  place  of  the  salamander's  amputated  leg  ?  No  phy- 
sical view  of  organism  can  give  the  least  information  on  this 
problem,  while  I  undertake  to  say  that  the  view  here  maintained 
of  a  vital  substantial  organism,  co-existing  within  the  corporeal 
as  its  exact  counterpart,  is  a  solution  at  once  conclusive,  and  as 
simple  as  it  is  satisfactory. 

According  to  this  hypothesis,  there  is  a  vital,  intangible,  but 
substantial  salamander,  in  perfect  form  and  outline,  embraced 
within  the  physical  structure  of  that  reptile.  This  invisible  or- 
ganism, so  far  as  its  vital  characteristics  are  concerned,  consists 
of  the  pure  substance  of  life  itself,  and  by  means  of  its  correla- 
tion in  all  its  parts  with  the  corresponding  parts  of  the  cor- 
poreal body,  thus  constituting  an  exact  organic  homologue,  all 
the  phenomena  of  growth,  sensation,  reproduction  of  parts,  and 
healing  of  wounds,  must,  as  stated,  necessarily  result.  To  the 
mental  eye,  the  reproduction  of  the  salamander's  corporeal  leg, 
under  the  control  and  direction  of  the  vital  leg,  is  plainly  visi- 
ble. 

Could  we  with  our  physical  eyes  see  what  really  exists, 
namely,  the  essential  leg  of  that  animal  still  connected  with  its 
body,  perfect  in  all  its  parts— cuticle,  joints,  muscles,  bones, 
ligaments,  nerves,  veins  and  arteries — after  the  physical  leg  is 
amputated  and  destroyed,  we  would  see  at  once  how  the  cor- 
poreal atoms  from  the  body  of  the  salamander  through  its  cir- 
culation are  built  out  from  the  stump  into  a  new  leg,  by  fol- 
lowing the  exact  but  substantial  outline  of  the  vital  structure; 
and  how  they  are  thus  deposited  one  by  one,  each  atom  in  due 
order,  within  the  exact  part  to  which  it  belongs,  till  the  whole 
leg,  to  the  ends  of  its  very  toes,  is  perfected — just  as  a  honey- 
bee builds  up  its  wonderful  cell  by  depositing  atom  by  atom  the 
wax  in  its  exact  place  to  form  the  ideal  geometrical  outline. 

Without  such  a  vital  and  substantial  leg  really  remaining 


252  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

Q.  32.     Have  animals  also  this  dual  organism? 

A.  Yes,  animals  and  plants.  Man  possesses  a  higher 
order  of  mentality  as  well  as  an  outward  organism  supe- 
rior to  that  of  the  animals.  Kevelation  teaches  that 
man,  both  as  to  his  outer  and  inner  self,  is  fearfully  and 

connected  with  this  complete  vital  organism,  there  would  be  no 
guide  or  outline  for  the  atoms  to  follow;  and  it  is  utterly  in- 
conceivable as  to  how  the  form  of  the  new  leg  is  preserved  by 
unconscious  laws  of  Nature,  except  by  the  direct  intervention 
of  a  creative  mind.  Physiologists  are  obliged,  therefore,  either  to 
accept  my  hypothesis  as  a  scientific  explanation  of  the  phenomena 
attending  the  reproduction  of  a  limb  or  to  have  recourse  to 
miraculous  intervention,  since  there  is  no  other  conceivable 
solution. 

The  same  is  true  of  the  healing  of  an  ordinary  wound.  How- 
ever deep  may  be  a  cut  in  the  flesh,  the  vital  or  intangible  flesh, 
so  to  speak,  remains  uncut,  and  the  work  of  healing  is  but  the 
deposition  of  organic  molecules  within  this  vital  substance  till 
the  wound  is  filled  up. 

There  is  not  the  least  difference  between  the  reproduction  of 
a  part,  the  healing  of  a  wound,  and  the  development  of  the 
embryonic  being  from  the  ovule.  The  vital  and  substantial 
germ  of  the  embryo  must  be  present  before  any  development 
can  commence.  Professor  Paget  corroborates  this  when  he 
says: 

' '  The  powers  of  development  from  the  embryo  are  identical 
with  those  exercised  for  the  restoration  from  injuries." — "  Lec- 
tures on  Pathology,"  1853,  p.  152. 

Yet,  should  you  ask  this  great  scientist  by  what  means  the  or- 
ganic atoms  are  guided  to  each  particular  part,  even  to  the  main- 
tenance of  their  exact  shades  of  color,  in  the  restoration  of  a  sala- 
mander's leg,  he  would  be  utterly  lost,  and  unable  to  enlighten 
you — since,  in  common  with  the  entire  profession,  he  has  no 
conception  of  this  dual  organic  structure  of  each  living  creat- 
ure, so  absolutely  essential  to  the  solution  of  the  problem. 

The  reproduction  of  a  part  when  amputated  must  depend 
upon  the  nature  and  density  of  the  life-substance  constituting 
the  vital  organism  of  the  part.  But  few  animals,  as  observa- 
tion proves,  are  able  thus  to  reproduce  a  lost  limb;  and  but  few 
children  would  possess  'that  density  of  vital  substance  in  the 
hand  which  would  be  sufficiently  compact  to  conduct  the  or- 


LIFE.  f     253 

wonderfully  made.  The  human  form,  if  not  prostituted, 
is  in  some  sense  the  image  of  Deity.  There  is  nothing 
in  creation  that  compares  with  the  human  face  for  God- 
likeness  and  significance  of  expression.  There  is  also  a 
beautiful  and  significant  prophecy  in  man's  upright  post- 

ganic  atoms  with  that  force  necessary  to  restore  an  amputated 
finger.  Yet  certain  worms  have  such  an  intensified  life-essence 
— the  nais,  for  example — that  they  can  be  cut  into  many  pieces, 
and  each  part  retain  sufficient  life-substance  to  lead  to  the  re- 
production of  the  whole  being. 

This  is  explained  on  the  same  principle  as  that  a  given  mass 
of  normal  atmosphere  may  be  subdivided  into  a  dozen  equal 
parts  and  passed  into  as  many  different  vacuums,  each  the  size 
of  the  original  mass.  It  is  plain  that  each  vacuum  would  be 
filled  with  air,  though  of  but  one-twelfth  its  normal  density. 
So  a  nais,  if  subdivided  into  a  dozen  sections,  instead  of  its 
dense  vital  organism  being  cut  up  into  corresponding  sections, 
it  would  be  subdivided  by  dilution  or  reduction  of  density,  each 
segment  retaining  the  complete  vital  form  and  outline  ot  the 
worm,  though  in  a  rarefied  condition.  Still,  although  thus 
diluted,  the  vital  form  of  this  creature  connected  with  each 
section  of  its  physical  structure  is  sufficiently  dense  to  form 
the  conducting  medium  of  the  corporeal  atoms  which  are  thus 
guided  along  the  line  of  the  organism,  each  one  taking  its 
place  till  the  corporeal  being  is  perfectly  reproduced.  No 
physiologist,  anatomist,  or  naturalist,  I  again  insist,  can  pro- 
pose even  the  shadow  of  an  explanation  of  this  overwhelming 
problem  based  on  the  monistic  view  of  organic  forms  of  being 
— holding,  as  they  all  do,  that  there  is  nothing  substantial  but 
the  tangible  in  a  living  creature. 

It  is  well  known  that  no  two  persons  are  exactly  alike  as  to 
the  facility  with  which  a  wound  will  heal.  With  some  a  scarless 
cicatrice  will  form  almost  immediately,  while  with  others  a  cut 
with  difficulty  heals  at  all.  This  is  generally  attributed  to  the 
purity  or  impurity  of  the  blood.  Though  this  may  be  a  partial 
cause  of  the  difference,  it  is  but  a  scintilla  of  the  true  reason. 
When  physiologists  and  pathologists  shall  come  to  fully  com- 
prehend the  grand  idea  involved  in  the  duality  of  man's  or- 
ganic nature,  the  science  of  medicine  will  have  made  a  long 
stride  in  advance  of  the  present  standard  of  scientific  knowl- 
edge. 


254  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

lire,  by  virtue  of  which  he  may  ever  have  his  eyes  turned 
upward  toward  the  great  Original. 

Q.  33.  Does  man  image  his  Maker  merely  by  way  of 
reflection,  as  the  shadow  of  an  object  is  mirrored  back 
from  a  looking-glass? 

I  add  but  one  other  corroborative  class  of  phenomena  to  con- 
firm the  truth  of  my  hypothesis,  on  which  so  much  depends, 
that  every  living  creature  possesses  a  dual  organism — a  sub- 
stantial vital  and  physical  structure.  This  class  of  phenomena 
consists  in  the  well-known  fact  that  when  a  human  arm  or  leg 
is  amputated  the  sufferer  distinctly  and  for  a  long  time  after- 
ward feels  pains  and  itching  sensations  in  the  fingers  or  toes  of 
the  lost  limb.  I  had  an  abundant,  though  unpleasant,  opportu- 
nity to  witness  a  demonstration  of  this  fact  in  the  case  of  my 
own  brother,  who  lost  his  leg  by  accident.  For  months  after  the 
amputation  he  would  complain  of  the  terrible  itching  sensation 
in  his  toes,  and  would  even  at  times  involuntarily  attempt  to  place 
his  hand  on  the  lost  foot.  Little  did  I  think  then  (over  forty 
years  ago)'  that  his  actual  foot  was  there  to  all  intents  and 
purposes  as  much  as  before  the  corporeal  flesh  had  disap- 
peared ! 

This  experience  is  not  confined  to  human  sufferers.  A  dog 
which  had  lost  its  leg  has  been  frequently  seen  to  attempt  to 
lick  its  absent  foot,  showing  that  the  true  source  of  all  sensa- 
tion is  the  vital  and  mental  organism,  and  that  upon  this 
foundation  alone  are  based  all  the  issues  of  life  and  all  bio- 
logical phenomena.  The  destruction  of  the  flesh  does  not  there- 
fore necessarily  put  an  end  to  the  actual  identity  of  the  being, 
the  difference  between  the  human  and  the  lower  forms  of  life 
alone  remaining  to  complete  the  solution  of  this  beautiful  and 
interesting  problem,  which  I  will  attempt  to  give  prior  to  the 
close  of  this  chapter.—"  The  Problem  of  Human  Life,"  p.  460. 

A  single  case  will  beautifully  illustrate  the  view  of  leading 
physiologists  on  these  questions  of  abnormal  variations  in  chil- 
dren, and  the  utter  confusion  resulting  from  a  want  of  recogni- 
tion of  this  inner  organism,  which  I  maintain  constitutes  the 
essential  nature  of  every  living  creature.  Mr.  Carpenter,  per- 
haps one  of  the  greatest  of  physiological  writers,  makes  the  fol- 
lowing statement: 

"  Numerous  cases  were  recorded  a  few  years  since,  in  which 
malformations  in  the  infant  appeared  distinctly  traceable  to 


LIFE.  255 

A.  The  image  of  God  in  man  signifies  more.  It  im- 
plies that  man,,  though  finite,  has  something  in  common 
with  Deity,  and  something  of  Deity  in  his  personal  con- 
stitution. 

Q.  34.  But  the  animal  also  has  something  in  common 
with  God — it  has  life. 

strong  impressions  made  on  the  mind  of  the  mother  some  months 
previously  to  parturition.''1 — "  Human  Physiology,"  p.  991. 

While  this  author  records  the  facts,  he  nevertheless  expresses 
himself  as  entirely  unable  to  comprehend  how  it  is  possible  for 
such  an  impression  to  reach  and  deform  the  embryo,  since  there 
is  no  system  of  nerves  connecting  the  mother  and  the  child,  but 
supposes  it  must  be  possible  for  it  to  be  accomplished  through 
the  circulation  of  the  blood,  though  of  even  this  he  is  in  doubt! 

Here,  then,  after  recording  these  cases  of  monstrosity  as  hav- 
ing taken  place  through  the  mental  impression  of  the  mother, 
this  great  author  at  once  ignores  the  mind  itself  as  the  connect- 
ing cause — takes  not  the  slightest  notice  of  the  living,  thinking 
part  of  the  mother,  as  a  substantial  entity,  and  the  vastly  more 
important  portion  of  her  dual  organism,  which  might  link  the 
mother  and  child,  but  goes  at  once  in  search  of  some  physical 
system  of  umbilic nerves  connecting  them;  and  because  he  can- 
not find  such  a  system,  he  is  thrown  into  bewildering  con- 
fusion, for  which  the  circulation  of  the  blood  of  the  mother 
affords  but  a  poor  relief,  since  how  did  this  mental  impression 
fasten  itself  upon  the  blood  ?  Now,  all  this  goes  to  show  us  the 
inexplicable  mystery  in  which  physiological  phenomena  are 
involved,  in  the  minds  of  the  greatest  authors,  by  a  non-recogni- 
tion of  the  sublime  fundamental  truth  I  have  been  trying  to 
impress  upon  the  reader.  It  demostrates  the  fact  that  the  mind 
itself  and  the  vital  incorporeal  essence  of  the  mother,  which 
pervade  her  entire  struct  ure  as  a  super-material  substance,  the 
same  as  incorporeal  electricity  might  be  supposed  to  pervade 
her,  are  the  true  and  only  means  by  which  the  impression  of 
the  monstrous,  frightful  object,  though  even  seen  at  a  distance, 
was  conveyed  to  the  plastic  form  of  the  embryonic  being.  I 
verily  believe  that  until  this  great  underlying  truth  shall  be  duly 
comprehended  and  recognized,  physiologists,  with  all  their 
laborious  and  histologic  researches,  even  with  the  most  power- 
ful microscopes  to  aid  them,  will  never  penetrate  even  the 


256  THE   SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

A.  So  has  the  plant  life.  It  is  not  the  possession  of 
life  but  of  that  order  of  life  involving  progress,  which 
can  rise  to  a  consciousness  of  itself,  and  which  is  en- 
dowed with  immortality  that  raises  man  so  high  in  the 
scale  of  being.  By  virtue  of  these  superior  possessions 

cuticle  of  science  as  regards  the  true  causes  of  physiological 
phenomena. 

By  this  hitherto  unrecognized  principle — and,  as  I  believe,  by 
it  alone— that  each  living  creature  is  formed  of  a  dual  substance 
and  organism,  half  corporeal  and  half  incorporeal — will  all  the 
biological  and  physiological  mysteries  involved  in  the  animal 
economy  be  ultimately  solved.-  In  the  light  of  this  elementary 
truth  we  can  see  at  once  why  no  two  children  appear  or  can 
appear  alike,  because  it  is  utterly  impossible  for  any  mother  to 
pass  during  gestation  through  the  same  number,  kind,  and 
intensity  of  mental  shocks  and  vital  perturbations.  The  law  of 
chances  mathematically  forbids  it.  Applying  this  principle  to 
the' lower  animals  (and  I  will  prove  positively  after  a  little  that 
they  are  controlled  by  the  same  law),  it  becomes  at  once  plain 
why  no  two  sheep,  out  of  the  almost  countless  millions  now  on 
earth,  are  alike,  and  why  in  a  thousand  million  births  no  two 
lambs  could  look  alike,  even  if  the  ewes  were  fed  on  exactly 
the  same  kind  of  food  and  subjected  as  nearly  as  possible  to  the 
same  environments,  since  the  same  vital  and  mental  impressions 
could  not  be  experienced  by  any  two  mothers  in  all  respects 
alike;  though  the  nearer  the  mental  and  vital  shocks  or  per- 
turbations could  come  to  nil  the  nearer  any  particular  lamb 
would  be  an  exact  cross,  partaking  equally  the  resemblance  of 
father  and  mother,  while  lambs  so  produced  from  the  same 
parents  from  year  to  year,  with  the  least  possible  mental  and 
vital  perturbations,  would  no  doubt  in  time  come  the  nearest  to 
perfect  resemblance  of  each  other  possible  to  attain  in  Nature. 

How  clearly  this  is  illustrated  by  the  well-known  fact  that 
human  twins  look  so  much  more  alike  than  children  of  separate 
births,  even  by  the  same  parents.  They  have,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  during  gestation,  received  alike  the  good  as  \vell  as  the 
ill  effects  of  the  same  mental  perturbations  and  vital  shocks  of 
the  motherland  precisely  at  the  same  times,  which  have  tended 
in  some  cases  to  produce  such  perfect  resemblance  between  them 
as  almost  to  make  them  indistinguishable.  It  is,  perhaps,  safe 
to  venture  the  belief,  that,  but  for  the  differently  transmitted 


LIFE.  257 

man  is  constitutionally  further  from  the  brute  than  he  is 
from  God. 

Q.  35.  But  are  not  the  brutes  immortal?  If  not,  why 
not? 

A.  Though  they  received  their  life  from  the  primor- 
dial source  of  all  life,  it  \vas  given  to  them  for  a  differ- 
ent purpose.  They  were  not  formed  for  immortality. 
They  could  make  no  use  of  it.  It  would  be  no  bless- 

impressions  from  the  father  upon,  the  two  life-germs,  which,  as 
I  have  before  assumed,  must  control  the  developing  embryo, 
twins  would  be  absolutely  and  in  all  cases  so  much  alike  as  to 
be  indistinguishable. 

That  the  mental  impression  of  the  mother  does  actually  fasten 
upon  the  child  throilgh  her  incorporeal  vital  organism,  whether 
such  impression  be  in  the  form  of  a  sudden  shock  or  of  a  lasting 
memory,  is  proved  by  the  well- authenticated  fact  that  many 
times  children  by  a  second  husband  resemble  the  first  much 
more  nearly  than  they  do  their  real  father,  alone  through  the 
vivid  memory  of  the  mother  and  her  appreciation  of  the  long 
dead  but  cherished  first  love.  Mr.  Darwin  admits  this,  but  act- 
ually insists,  from  his  purely  corporeal  ideas  of  organic  beings, 
that  this  fact  results  from  the  physical  impression  left  upon  the 
mother's  organization  by  the  first  husband,  which  will  be  ut- 
terly exploded  when  I  come  to  apply  these  facts  directly  to  the 
hypothesis  for  which  I  am  now  preparing,  though  the  fact  is 
equally  well  authenticated  that  many  a  mother,  through  the 
cherished  memory  of  an  early  love,  and  who  died  before  mar- 
riage, has  given  to  her  future  children  the  likeness  of  the  lost 
one,  with  whom  she  sustained  only  mental  relationship. 

No  one  who  has  given  attention  to  this  subject  doubts  but 
that  children  are  frequently  marked  and  even  deformed  by  the 
longing  desire  of  the  mother  for  some  particular  object  which 
deeply  impressed  her  thoughts.  I  could  give  a  list,  of  more  than 
a  score  of  such  marks,  which  have  fallen  under  my  own  obser- 
vation, where  well  defined  pictures  of  fruits,  fishes,  and  other 
objects,  have  been  imprinted  upon  various  parts  of  the  bodies  of 
children,  recognized  by  the  mothers,  and  the  very  times  and  cir- 
cumstances recollected  which  produced  them. — "Problem  of 
Human  Life,"  pp.  466-8. 


258  THE     SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

ing  to  them.     They  are  not  wronged  in  being  deprived 
of  it.* 

Q.  36.  Does  the  highest  conception  of  man's  being 
consist  and  culminate  in  immortality? 

A.  It  does  not.  Man's  true  dignity  is  in  his  person- 
ality— bis  true  destiny  involves  immortality.  Man  is 
immortal  because  he  is  a  person,  and  he  can  have  a 
blessed  immortality  only  as  he  is  in  a  blessed  normal  re- 
lation to  God,  who  is  the  ground  and  giver  of  his  person- 
ality. 

Q.  37.  What  then  is  the  difference  between  an  in- 
dividual and  a  person  9 

A.     An  individual  is  an  organic  being  whose  continued 

*  And  here,  accidentally,  we  again  come  back  to  the  starting 
point— the  real,  intrinsic,  and  essential  difference  between  man 
and  the  lower  animals.  Here  it  is,  in  a  condensed  form.  While 
the  lower  animals  receive  at  birth  their  speciiic  stores  of  knowl- 
edge suited  to  their  environment  (without  the  capacity  of  teach- 
ing or  being  taught,  except  to  a  very  limited  specific  extent), 
thus  adapting  them  exclusively  to  this  single  state  of  existence, 
the  human  being  receives  no  knowledge  at  birth — not  a  single 
idea  of  inherited  intelligence— but,  as  before  observed,  an  un- 
limited blank  capacity  for  being  taught,  having  an  interior  or- 
ganism capable  of  being  cultivated  and  expanded  to  eternity. 
This  alone  constitutes  a  wall  as  broad  as  the  earth  and  as  high 
as  the  heavens  between  the  man  and  the  brute. 

But,  as  a  necessary  psychological  corollary  and  scientific  out- 
growth of  this  sublime  demarkation,  lower  animals  cannot  have 
the  slightest  conception  of  a  future  life,  since  their  vital  and 
mental  organisms,  as  well  as  their  specific  stores  of  inherited 
knowledge,  are  only  suited  to  and  limited  within  a  temporary 
existence.  Hence,  a  future  life  of  conscious  activity,  being  un- 
anticipated, undesired,  and  wholly  unconceived  of,  by  lower 
species,  would  be  of  not  the  least  advantage  even  to  the  most 
cultivated  orang-outang,  and  would  be  unappreciated  by  such 
creatures  even  if  they  had  it,  since  it  would  be  but  an  eternal 
sameness  without  the  eternal  advances  in  culture  necessary  to 
make  it  otherwise,  of  which  their  very  organic  natures  are 
wholly  insusceptible. 


LIFE.  259 

existence  as  such  depends  upon  the  continued  union  of 
all  its  parts  by  virtue  of  a  common  and  all-pervading 
life-force.  The  individual  cannot  be  totally  divided  or 
separated  into  many  parts  without  the  destruction  of  its 
organic  integrity — it  is  an  un-di-vide-u-al: 

A  person  is  also  an  undivideual  with  a  common  life- 
pervading  bond  of  union,  but  "  one  that  is  awake  in  itself, 
that  has  found  and  laid  hold  of  itself.  That  which  is 
wanting  in  individuality  to  make  it  personality,  is  a  soul 
capable  of  thinking  and  willing."* 

Q.  38.  The  young  infant  has  no  soul  capable  of  think- 
ing and  willing:  is  it  therefore  not  a  person? 

*  "  Rauch's  Psychology,  p.  175. 

The  greatest  and  most  important  difference  between  man  and 
the  lower  animal,  even  including  the  higher  apes — that  differ- 
ence which  may  be  properly  called  the  distinguishing  character- 
istic— consists  in  the  fact  that  no  animal  below  man  has  or  can 
have  a  conception  of  life  a£ter  death,  from  the  very  nature  of 
their  instinctive  knowledge  and  the  manner  of  its  reception. 
Whatever  other  differences  may  exist,  and  they  are  numberless 
and  startling,  this  is  incomparably  the  most  intrinsic  and  uni- 
versal. 

All  this  limitation  to  earthly  objects,  however,  is  exactly  the 
reverse  with  man.  With  his  unlimited  blank  capacity  at  birth 
for  receiving  instruction,  he  immediately  acquires  with  his  or- 
dinary and  rudimental  intelligence,  even  if  not  specially  taught 
it,  a  conception  of  living  on  forever;  and  not  only  such  a  con- 
ception of  a  future  existence,  but  a  desire  for  and  appreciation 
of  such  an  endless  opportunity  of  acquiring  knowledge.  There 
is  no  reasonable  or  scientific  ground  for  supposing  that  a  long- 
ing anticipation  of  and  a  universal  aspiration  for  a  life  beyond 
death  could  have  been  thus  made  an  indestructible  part  of  man's 
mental  organism  were  there  no  such  a  possibility  as  a  future  life 
in  the  divine  economy  of  the  universe.  This  blank  capacity  for 
unlimited  cultivation  and  eternal  advancement  in  knowledge 
becomes  the  guarantee  of  man's  immortality — while  the  lower 
animal,  having  no  such  a  capacity  as  a  title-deed  to  a  future  life, 
gives  back  at  death  the  mental  and  vital  drop  of  its  essential 


260  THE  SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

A.  The  above  interrogative  proposition  is  too  broad 
for  unqualified  truth.  An  infant  has  a  soul  capable  of 
development  to  tht  thinking  and  willing  stage  of  its  ex- 
istence. It  is  therefore  a  person  in  passivity — a  man  in 
search  of  himself. 

Q.  39.  Is  an  insane  individual,  or  a  maniac,  a  person 
after  he  has  lost  his  ability  to  think  clealy  and  will  de- 
liberately? 

A.  He  is  still  a  person.  The  Substantial  Philosophy 
holds  and  teaches  that  the  mind  is  a  substance.  To  de- 
range the  faculties  or  activities  of  an  organized  substance 
does  not  destroy  sucli  substance;  neither  does  such  de- 
rangement of  faculties  destroy  the  integrity  of  the  organ- 
entity,  which,  instead  of  being  annihilated  or  in  any  sense  lost 
or  blotted  out,  exists  forever — not  as  an  identity  of  being,  but 
falls  back  and  is  reabsorbed  into  the  great  and  infinite  fountain 
of  life  and  intelligence  from  which  it  originally  came  as  a  spark 
of  being — the  same  as  a  drop  of  water  which  rises  from  the  sea 
in  the  form  of  vapory  mist,  and  after  being  carried  by  clouds  to 
distant  lands  and  caused  to  descend  in  rain  to  water  the  soil, 
serving  thereby  its  temporary  use,  percolates  to  the  river, 
through  whose  channel  it  at  last  finds  its  way  back  to  the  orig- 
inal fountain  whence  it  came,  where,  by  liquidation,  it  forever 
loses  its  identity  in  the  bosom  of  the  mother  ocean,  without  an 
atom  of  its  substance  being  annihilated. 

Even  the  infant,  at  birth,  or  before  it  has  a  conscious  thought, 
is  thus  the  heir  by  title-deed  to  immortal  life,  though  its  actual 
knowledge  is  not  the  millionth  part  that  of  the  pig  or  puppy  of 
the  same  age.  It  starts,  thus,  a  blank  as  to  intelligence;  but, 
having  the  infinite  endorsement  of  its  father  and  mother,  which 
involves  the  undeveloped  capability  of  analyzing  the  stars  and 
weighing  the  planets,  it  holds  wrapped  up  in  its  vital  and  men- 
tal organism  the  ego  of  an  indestructible  personal  identity;  and 
should  it  thus  die  untaught,  and  even  unconscious  of  its  own 
being,  its  magnet  charta  of  selfhood  will  be  its  passport  to  the 
primary  college  of  the  angels,  and  thence  to.  the  university  over 
whose  entrance  is  written  in  letters  of  life — The  Garden  of  Eter- 
nal Progress. — "  Problem,"  p.  471. 


LIFE.  26J 

ism  in  which  they  hold  their  being,  and  of  which  they 
are  faculties.  If  the  mind  were  but  the  motion  -or 
phenomena  of  something  else,  mental  disease  would  be 
impossible,  because  as  a  mere  motion  the  mind  could  not 
got  sick,  ©r,  if  sick,  it  would  not  be  curable,  since  mere 
phenomena  cannot  be  medicated.  It  follows,  therefore, 
that  the  insane  person  is  a  person  still.  The  maniac  is  a 
person  with  a  deranged  will.  An  imbecile  is  a  person 
with  all  faculties  out  of  harmony  or  in  a  state  of  suspen- 
sion, just  as  an  infant  is  a  person  with  its  faculties  not 
yet  developed.  A  crazy  man  is  a  person  who  lias  lost 
himself.  An  infant  is  a  person  who  has  not  yet  found  it- 
self. These  views  can  be  consistently  held  and  logically 
developed  only  in  the  light  of  the  Substantial  Philoso- 
phy. According  to  any  other  system  of  psychology  there 
is  nothing  to  lose  nor  find  but  motion,  and  motion  has 
no  more  existence  than  space.  Any  psychology  which 
denies  the  substantiality  and  proper  entity  of  the  soul  is 
the  most  sublimated  idiocy  in  the  sphere  of  mental 
science.  Its  only  good  fortune  lies  in  the  fact  that 
idiots  never  get  crazy. 

Q.  40.  Have  individuality  and  personality  the  same 
source? 

A.  In  common  with  all  other  finite  forms  of  being, 
individuals  and  persons  have  the  same  origin;  yet  per- 
sonality is  derived  from  God  in  such  a  way  and  for  such 
a  purpose  as  to  bring  with  it  the  inherent  impress  of  its 
great  personal  original. 

Q.  41.     Are  faculties  predicable  of  the  soul  or  mind? 

A.  Faculties,  like  immorality,  belong  to  the  person, 
rather  than  to  any  one  side  of  his  being;  and  yet  there  is 
no  impropriety  in  speaking  of  mental  faculties. 

Q.  42.     What  are  these  faculties? 

A.  Among  them  maybe  named  memory — that  faculty 
or  activity  of  the  person  by  which  he  looks  to  past  ex- 


262  THE  SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

pericnce  or  observation;  imagination — that  faculty  by 
which  the  person  turns  to  the  future  or  to  the  mystic 
realm  of  fancy;  and  as  the  substantial  person  unfolds  his 
character,  he  exercises  himself  in  the  higher  activities  of 
his  being,  such  as  reason  and  will. 

Q.  43.  Are  these  faculties  so  many  substantial  enti- 
ties? 

A.  They  are  not.  -  There  is  but  one  entitative  life- 
principle  in  each  person.  This  remains  the  same  and  in- 
divisible whether  the  person  remembers,  imagines,  thinks 
or  wills. 

Q.  44.  Then  loving,  thinking  and  willing  are  not  sub- 
stantial entities? 

A.  They  are  modes  of  personal  motion  or  activity,  and 
differ  according  to  the  peculiarity  of  the  impulse  prompt- 
ing it,  the  degree  in  which  the  personal  life-force  is 
exerted  and  the  object  toward  which  the  movement  is 
made. 

Q.  45.  What  is  the  highest  faculty  predicable  of  man's 
personality? 

A.  Will.  Choice  is  the  highest  exercise  or  activity 
of  which  a  rational  being  is  capable.  It  is  in  virtue  of 
this  capability  that  man  may  rise  high  in  the  ethical 
sphere  of  being,  choose  the  good,  and  thus  determine  his 
own  happiness  and  glory  forever. 

Q.  46.  Does  not  such  will-power  imply  and  include 
the  possibility  of  choosing  the  evil,  and  also  of  suffering 
the  consequences  of  an  unwise  choice? 

A.  It  does  indeed;  and  the  philosopher,  as  well  as  the 
philanthropist,  regrets  the  fact  that  such  possibility  has 
been  actualized  in  the  form  of  sin  and  death,  as  sho  ^n  in 
the  next  chapter. 


CHAPTEK  XII. 

DEATH. 

QUESTION  1.     What  is  death? 

ANSWER.  This  undefinable  negation  flits  constantly 
across  the  path  of  life,  all  robed  in  sombrous  garments  of 
impenetrable  mystery. 

Q.  2.  May  not  science  approximate  an  exhaustive  defi- 
nition of  the  term? 

A.  Some  definitions  may  be  given  by  fragments,  and 
yet  when  all  the  fragments  are  put  together  they  do  not 
constitute  a  satisfactory  whole. 

Q.  3.  What  is  the  latest  definition  of  death  as  given 
by  science? 

A.  "  A  falling  out  of  correspondence  with  environ- 
ments." 

Q.  4.  Is  this  definition  of  Herbert  Spencer  satisfactory 
to  those  who  seek  and  see  the  truth  in  the  light  of  the 
Substantial  Philosophy? 

A.  It  is  not  reasonable  to  suppose  that  it  can  be, 
since  it  proceeds  from  a  materialistic  conception  of  life.* 

Q.  5.  What  definition  does  Substantialism  give  of 
death? 

A.  If,  as  already  seen,  life  is  the  highest  form  of 
force  in  the  universe,  death  must  be  defined  in  such 
terms  as  to  represent  it  in  some  way  antithetic  thereto. 

*  See  different  definition  of  life,  Chap.  XI. 


264  THE   SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

The  withdrawal  of  life  force  for  want  of  favorable  condi- 
tions, or  for  want  of  ability  to  remain  in  any  given  sub- 
stance, leaves  such  substance  under  the  negative  power 
of  death.  The  withdrawal  of  life  results  in  death. 

Q.  6.     Is  death  an  entity? 

A.  A  death  agent  may  have  positive  contents  of  being, 
but  death  itself  is  a  nonentity — a  weakness — an  empty 
negation — a  solemn  silence. 

Q.  7.     Is  death  a  process? 

A.  In  the  present  order  of  things  it  is  the  indispensa- 
ble accompaniment  and  negative  counterpart  of  a  posi- 
tive life-process.  Decomposition  and  recomposition  com- 
plement each  other  in  filling  up  the  measure  of  the 
world's  history. 

Q.  8.     In  death,  what  dies? 

A.  Nothing  really  entitative  and  substantive  can  die. 
Combinations  cease;  relations  change;  heterogeneous  sub- 
stances dissolve.  That  which  did  not  come  from  noth- 
ing can  never  go  to  nothing.  In  the  sense  of  annihila- 
tion it  cannot  die. 

Q.  9.     Then  death  is  mere  dissolution  or  separation. 

A.  We  may  go  far  and  fare  worse  in  search  of  a  better 
definition. 

Q.  10.  Does  this  definition  apply  to  all  the  depart- 
ments of  finite  being? 

A.  Under  certain  modifications  it  does.  In  the  chem- 
ical domain  dissolution  is  decomposition;  in  physical 
forces  it  is  dissipation;  in  the  realm  of  biology  it  is  disor- 
ganization. 

Q.  11.  If,  then,  nothing  is  destroyed  by  death,  how 
are  the  substantive  elements  affected? 

A.  They  are  relegated  to  the  immediate  source  of 
their  respective  beings— matter  to  matter,  force  to  force, 
spirit  to  God. 

Q.  12.     Is  death  always  the  simple  result  of  the  ex- 


DEATH.  265 

pending  of  the  force  at  work  in  any  given  individual  or 
order  of  being? 

A.  This  is  the  ordinary  or  usual  occasion  of  what  we 
denominate  death. 

Q.  13.     Then  death  is  the  mere  absence  of  life? 

A.  When  an  accomplished  fact,  it  is  usually  the  result 
of  life's  mission  having  been  finished,  and  its  consequent 
departure  from  that  particular  field  of  its  operations. 

Q.  14.  But  may  not  foreign,  adventitious  forces  invade 
any  one  of  the  several  departments  of  being,  and  hurry 
forward  the  process  of  dissolution? 

A.  The  history  of  the  world  is  a  boundless  volume  of 
testimony  establishing  the  affirmative  of  the  foregoing 
question. 

Q.  15.  Then  such  foreign  power  of  dissolution  is  not 
confined  to  the  chemical  domain,  and  its  work  to  the  de- 
composition of  compound  matter? 

A.  It  is  not.  Death  not  only  ' (  reigned  from  Adam, 
to  Moses,"  but  with  limited  sway  it  still  continues  to  in- 
vade and  reign  in  ail  orders  of  being  from  atoms  of  mat- 
ter to  some  of  the  angels  which  once  excelled  in  finite 
force.  It  enters  as  a  dissolvent  and  puts  asunder  all 
heterogeneous  masses  of  material  substance.  It  invades 
the  realm  of  physics  and  takes  advantage  of  the  resolv- 
ability  of  forces  to  disperse  them  abroad,  or  to  transform 
them  into  their  correlatives.  It  enters  all  finite  orders  of 
organic  being,  and,  when  not  met  and  driven  out  by 
some  superior  indwelling  force,  refuses  to  leave  until,  in 
its  exit,  it  hangs  its  crape  upon  the  door.  Salt  waters 
from  the  ocean  overflow  the  living  productions  of  the 
land;  and  forces  from  the  continents  destroy  all  that  is 
destructible  in  the  denizens  of  the  seas.  Minerals  may 
poison  plants  and  shorten  the  lives  of  animals.  The 
vegetable  may  send  agents  of  death  to  the  animal,  and 
the  animal  kingdom  may  delegate  a  worm  to  gnaw  the 
vitals  out  of  many  a  Jonah's  gourd. 


266  THE   SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

Q.  16.  Is  the  rational  order  of  being  also  subject  to 
such  foreign  invasion? 

A.  It  is  no  exception  to  the  general  rule  under  which 
the  whole  creation  groweth  and  traveleth  together  in 
pains  and  possibilities  of  premature  dissolution. 

Q.  17.  Has  the  human  kingdom  been  subject  to  such 
foreign  assault  and  violence? 

A.  Like  all  the  orders  of  being  beneath  it,  the  king- 
dom of  humanity  was  and  is  exposed  to  invasion  from 
abroad. 

Q.  18.     Did  such  foreign  invasion  occur? 

A.     It  did. 

Q.  19.  What  foreign  force  has  invaded  the  kingdom 
of  humanity? 

A.     Sin." 

Q.  20.     Is  sin  entirely  foreign  to  humanity? 

A.  The  instigation  to  sin  was  foreign.  The  possibility 
was  inherent. 

Q.  21.  Did  not  the  possibility  of  sinning  imply  an  im- 
perfection in  the  primeval  state  of  man,  and  reflect  a 
shadow  of  doubt  as  to  the  perfection  of  the  Creator? 

A.  Not  at  all.  Without  such  possibility  man  would 
have  been  imperfect. 

Q.  22.  Was  sin,  then,  a  necessity  in  order  to  rational 
or  human  perfection? 

A.     The  possibility  of  sin  was  a  necessity. 

Q.  23.  Could  such  inward  possibility  have  been  actu- 
alized without  the  outward  instigation? 

A.'  No  more  than  the  static  force-elements  of  nature 
could  be  developed  without  the  presence  of  required  con- 
ditions. 

Q.  24.  Was  sin,  then,  statically  present  in  the  prime- 
val man? 

A.     The  possibility  of  sinning  was  really  present. 


DEATH.  26? 

Q.  25.  Then  human  ability  to  sin  was  essential  to 
human  dignity  and  happiness? 

A.  Yes;  man's  ability  to  sin  was  essential  to  perfec- 
tion in  his  primitive  state;  and  his  power  to  use  that 
ability  absolutely  necessary  to  the  attainment  of  his 
ultimate  state  of  sinlessness  in  glory. 

Q.  26.     Is  sin,  then,  the  cause  of  death? 

A.  It  is  not  the  cause  of  human  transition  to  a 
higher  state,  but  of  all  the  sorrows  and  miseries  which 
now  accompany  the  transition,  from  the  present  section 
of  human  existence.  It  is  not  because  this  world  is  a 
bad  and  dangerous  place,  but  because  it  was  designed  to 
be  preparatory  of  a  better  state  of  existence  that  no  good 
people  get  out  of  it  alive. 

Q.  27.  Is  sin  the  cause  of  death  to  the  lower  orders 
of  being? 

A.  A  great  deal  of  dogmatic  theology  has  advocated 
the  affirmative  side  of  the  foregoing  question,  but  the 
very  rocks  cry  out  in  rebuke  of  such  an  unscientific  as- 
sumption, while  the  geological  records  of  numerous  ages 
give  unimpeachable  testimony  to  the  contrary.* 

*  The  animal,  while  it  lives,  conserves  to  itself  and  appro- 
priates continuously  the  forces  of  Nature  with  which  it  is  in 
contact.  Its  life  principal  has  an  endowment  making  it  thus 
capable.  It  appropriates  the  forces  of  light,  heat,  electricity — 
the  nutriment  of  food,  drink,  air — the  affinities  of  the  elements 
— the  laws  of  mechanics.  All  these  appropriations  go  on  and 
result  in  growth,  strength,  activity  and  the  perfection  of  a  liv- 
ing being.  In  all  this  time  the  life-forces  have  been  building 
up;  just  like  the  growing  tree  that  made  fuel  for  the  engine. 
But  now  the  animal  has  reached  its  perfection — it  has  enjoyed 
buoyant  life  and  has  secured  a  succession  of  its  species,  and 
thence  it  gradually  declines.  In  growth  the  life -forces  con- 
trolled the  simple  chemical  forces  of  Nature,  and.  thus  appro- 
priated and  built  up.  But  now  the  chemical  forces  gradually 
gain  upon  the  vital,  and  the  animal  goes  down  naturally,  but 
orderly.  There  is  harmony  still  in  Nature— the  animal  yields  up 


268  THE   SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

Q.  28.     But  did  not  sin  bring  death  to  man? 

A.  Yes,  in  so  far  as  it  affected  his  moral  nature,  and 
disturbed  the  normal  development  of  his  whole  being, 
but  especially  in  its  accomplishment  of  the  moral  separa- 
tion between  man  and  his  Maker.  Actualized  sin  was 
an  incipient  dissolution  of  the  original  compact  written 
in  the  very  constitution  of  rational  being — moral  separa- 
tion— an  abnormal  condition  of  the  highest  side  of  man's 
nature,  and,  as  a  consequence,  affecting  the  totality  of 
his  being. 

Q.  29.  Would  man,  then, 'have  died,  if  the  possibility 
of  sin  had  not  been  thus  actualized? 

its  forces — "  conserves"  them  to  the  grand  economy.  Just  as 
this  animal  had  appropriated  in  its  growing  stage  so  it  now,  as 
naturally,  yields  after  its  maturity. 

Physical  death  of  all  animals  is  a  necessity,  and  a  natural 
phase  of  the  grand  physical  economy.  And  man,  in  obeying  its 
laws  of  change  and  conservation  of  forces,  as  he  passes  them 
over  after  using  them,  is  only  playing  his  part  in  the  grand 
drama.  His  superadded  moral  nature,  indeed,  brings  in  a  new 
element,  but  this  is  only  co-ordinate;  and  although  it  occasions 
some  very  notable  circumstances  that  attend  his  physical  experi- 
ences, especially  that  of  death,  yet  it  is  no  factor  of  the  essential 
formula. 

In  our  moral  consciousness  and  religious  sense,  physical  death 
is  an  event  of  much  import;  and  the  mistaken  conceptions  of 
the  olden  times,  that  have  formulated  the  theory  of  a  reciprocal 
constitution  of  our  dual  being,  which  ignores  specific  laws, 
have  given  death  a  penal  character  of  moral  elements  only;  and 
have  thus  made  this  inevitable  phase  of  our  corporeal  being  a 
most  melancholy  experience.  The  order  of  Nature  is  by  no 
means  chargeable  with  those  melancholy  reflections.  And  it 
will  be  infinitely  to  our  moral  advantage  to  have  correct  views 
of  all  the  laws  of  our  twofold  being.  Let  all  the  consequences 
of  sin  or  moral  delinquency  be  precipitated,  in  our  formularies 
of  ethics,  into  the  moral  domain;  and  let  moral  death,  which  is 
an  unnatural  estate,  appear  in  all  its  horribleness,  so  that  sin 
may  become  more  hideous.  What  a  rich  inheritance  would 
thus  be  secured  to  theology!  and  what  gl  jry  to  the  achievements 
of  virtue.— Rev.  J.  Kost,  LL.  D.,  in  "  Repertory,"  1879. 


DEATH.  260 

A.  He  would  have  made  the  transition  to  a  higher 
state  without  death  in  the  form  of  such  terrible  catastro- 
phe in  nature. 

Q.  30.  Then  death  does  not  necessarily  belong  to  the 
constitution  of  Nature? 

A.  Death  is  a  physical  necessity  in  the  lower  orders 
of  being,  but  man's  constitutional  dignity  and  attainable 
destiny  involved  only  the  necessity  of  transition. 

Q.  31.  Is  sin,  then,  the  perversion  of  something  essen- 
tial to  humanity,  or  is  it  the  presence  therein  of  a  hostile 
foreign  force  not  essential  thereto? 

A.  Sin  is  a  perversion  of  the  life  force  in  humanity, 
rather  than  an  invasion  of  anything  like  a  death  force 
from  without,  and  yet  such  perversion  could  not  have 
taken  place  without  the  presence  and  possibility  of  in- 
vasion by  such  foreign  power  as  a  condition  necessary  to 
such  actualization. 

Q.  32.  Is  sin  then  a  force  in  our  nature,  or  only  the 
motion  or  effe  ct  of  a  force? 

A.  Sin  is  the  perverted  life  force  of  humanity  and 
therefore  a  force  abnormally  active  in  human  nature. 

Q.  33.  Then  sin  is  predicable  of  humanity  in  its 
present  abnormal  condition  without  any  reference  to 
deeds  of  actual  sinning? 

A.  Precisely  and  emphatically  so;  and  yet  sin  is  no 
essential  part  of  humanity. 

Q.  34.     Is  the  infant  a  sinner? 

A.  No  human  individual  is  a  sinner  until  after  he  has 
individually  and  personally  and  purposely  committed 
some  overt  act  of  trangression. 

Q.  35.     Is  sin  then  a  static  force  in  infants? 

A.  It  is  just  as  really  the  perverted  life  force  of 
humanity  in  a  latent  condition  in  every  human  indi- 
vidual as  heat,  sound  and  electricity — all  the  physical 
forces  in  fact — are  statically  present  in  matter. 


270  THE   SUBSTANTIAL    PHILOSOPHY. 

Q.  36.  Then  sin  belongs  to  humanity  as  at  present 
constituted? 

A.  Sin  is  in  humanity  as  at  present  abnormally  con- 
stituted. 

Q.  37.  Does  sin  taint  and  affect  every  member  of  the 
human  race? 

A.  Humanity  is  not  a  mere  aggregation  of  particular 
things  or  number  of  human  beings,  but  an  organism 
which  includes  all  the  members  and  gives  them  charac- 
ter, or  whatever  is  peculiar  thereto.  If  sin  has  in  any- 
way tainted  and  affected  the  general  organism  of  human- 
ity, nothing  but  the  shrewdness  of  unscientific  sophistry 
can  avoid  the  logical  conclusion  that  every  member  of 
the  organism  is  tainted  and  affected  in  the  same  general 
way. 

Q.  38.     Is  humanity  then  totally  depraved? 

A.     In  a  qualified  sense,  man  is  totally  depraved. 

Q.  39.  How  should  the  term  "total  depravity"  be 
qualified  ? 

A.  So  as  to  express  merely  its  coextensiveness  with 
human  nature  in  its  present  abnormal  condition. 

Q.  40.  Then  man,  by  the  actualization  of  his  possi- 
bility to  sin,  did  not  cease  to  be  human? 

A.  Man  by  sinning  became  neither  a  brute  nor  a 
devil  as  to  the  essence  of  his  being.  The  substance  of 
his  nature  has  neither  been  destroyed  nor  transformed 
into  something  else.  He  is  human  still — though  de- 
faced and  deformed,  he  retains  the  Divine  image.  For 
this  reason  his  Maker  loves  him  still. 

Q.  41.  If  man  is  still  human,  and  in  a  qualified  sense 
still  retains  the  Divine  image,  why  does  he  die — what 
had  sin  to  do  with  the  bringing  of  death  into  the  world? 

A.  As  already  seen,  it  had  nothing  to  do  with  bring- 
ing death  to  the  vegetable  and  animal  kingdoms — death 
was  an  ordained  physical  necessity  for  them. 


271 

Q.  42.  But  how  does  sin  stand  related  to  the  perplex- 
ing problem  of  death  in  the  higher  or  rational  order  of 
being? 

A.  It  is  here  and  in  this  sense  that  by  sin  came  death. 
This  is  what  theologians  call  "spiritual  death.*' 

Q.  43.  What  has  science  to  do  with  theology  and  the 
question  of  spiritual  death? 

A.  Until  recently  it  has  had  too  little  to  do  with  the 
great  problems  involved  therein,  just  as  theologians  have 
had  too  little  to  do  in  an  earnest  way  with  true  science, 
and  it  will  be  better  for  theology  when  it  becomes  less 
dogmatic  and  more  consistently  scientific  in  the  work 
which  the  Author  of  a  twofold  revelation  has  given  to 
the  scientific  theologian  and  the  Christian  scientist  to  do.* 

Q.  44.  What,  then,  is  spiritual  death,  scientifically 
considered  ? 

A.  It  is  the  moral  sundering  from  its  Maker,  or 
Fountain  of  its  existence,  of  a  being  with  a  rational  or 
spiritual  entity  in  its  constitution.  A  falling  out  of  cor- 
respondence or  communion  with  its  substantial  Source. 

Q.  45.     And  sin  is  the  cause  of  this  sundering? 

A.  Sin  is  not  the  mere  cause,  but  the  very  essence  of 
spiritual  death  in  the  realm  of  spirit.  Sin  is  static  death 
in  the  abnormal  state  of  the  spirit,  and  death  is  sin  in  the 
process  of  development. 

Q.  46.  How  far  may  the  process  of  such  development 
be  carried  before  sin  expends  its  force? 

*  The  true  ministry  of  Nature  must  at  last  be  honored,  and 
science  take  its  place  as  the  great  expositor.  With  the  inspira- 
tion of  Nature  to  illumine  what  the  inspiration  of  Revelation 
has  left  obscure,  heresy  in  certain  whole  departments  shall  be- 
come impossible.  With  the  demonstration  of  the  naturalness  of 
the  supernatural,  skepticism  even  may  come  to  be  regarded 
as  unscientific.  — Drumraond,  "Natural  Law  in  the  Spiritual 
World,"  pp.  32,  33. 


272  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

A.  For  the  same  reason  that  gravital  force  will  act 
upon  matter  as  long  as  matter  exists,  and  wherever  mat- 
ter is  found,  the  force  of  sin  will  continue  to  act  upon 
abnormal  human  nature  as  long  as  human  nature  con- 
tinues in  an  abnormal  state,  and  wherever  human  nature 
in  such  abnormity  is  found,  unless 

Q.  47.     Unless  what? 

A.  Unless  sin  as  a  force  be  met  by  an  antidote  or 
counterforce  corresponding  with  the  nature  and  com- 
mensurate with  the  degree  of  the  force  to  be  eliminated. 

Q.  48.  What  has  science  to  do  with  spiritual  anti- 
dotes? 

A.  This  question  will  be  discussed  in  the  next  chap- 
ter. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 
DEATH'S  ANTIDOTE. 

QUESTION  1.     What  is  an  antidote? 

ANSWER.  An  antidote  is  an  applied  counterforce— a 
remedy — that  which  neutralizes  the  evil  or  poisonous 
power  of  something  else  at  work  in  organic  existence — 
that  which  eliminates  another  force  from  any  particular 
field  of  organic  action,  and  relegates  it  to  its  fountain 
source. 

Q.  2.  Are  count eractant  forces  limited  to  the  organic 
world,  or  do  they  also  belong  to  the  domain  of  physics 
and  in  the  realm  of  inorganic  chemistry? 

A.  No  pent-up  Utica  contracts  the  comprehensive 
domain  of  forces.  When  not  static  they  are  active  or 
counteractive  throughout  the  boundless  universe  of  God. 
In  the  lower  orders  of  being  they  are  types  of  better 
things  above,  and  prophecies  of  higher  things -to  come. 
The  science  of  chemistry  reveals  nothing  more  clearly 
than  the  fact  that  either  matter  or  its  properties,  or  the  so- 
called  new  properties  of  its  many  possible  combinations, 
or  the  forces  resident  therein,  are  continually  neutraliz- 
ing each  other.  For  this  reason  the  art  of  medication  is 
largely  the  practical  science  of  applied  chemistry.  Acids 
or  sour  corrosive  substances  are  neutralized  by  alkalies. 
So  also  are  narcotics  neutralized — /.  e.,  their  forces  are 
subject  to  elimination  or  transference  by  the  application 
thereto  of  a  counterforce  resident  in  belladonna  or  some 
other  anti-narcotic  agency  of  nature  which  has  the  power 


274  THE    SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

to  act  or  counteract  as  a  superior  energy.  The  same  is 
true  in  the  domain  of  physics,  where  forces  deal  with 
each  other  and  with  homogeneous  matter,  without  refer- 
ence to  its  many  possible  compounds,  as  is  the  case  in 
chemistry.  While  all  the  forces  are  one  in  their  common 
primordial  essence,  they  are  multiform  in  distinct  mis- 
sions and  manifestations  of  being,  and  each  one  has  the 
property  of  transference  or  is  subject  to  neutralization 
when  in  the  presence  of  a  superior  force  or  a  force  acting 
under  more  favorable  conditions  of  retention.  For  ex- 
ample, as  seen  in  Chapter  IV.,  heat  neutralizes  cohesion; 
and  again,  in  Chapter  V.,  magnetism  neutralizes  gravity, 
and  lifts  up  that  which,  according  to  the  workings  of 
gravital  force,  would  tend  downward.  So,  in  the  higher 
sphere  of  morals  or  spirit,  that  which  tends  downward 
under  an  abnormal  force  may  be  arrested  and  reversed  in 
its  course  by  the  application  of  a  moral  or  spiritual 
counterforce,  which,  neutralizing  the  abnormal  force 
that  pulls  the  moral  entity  downward,  lifts  its  object  up, 
and  reinstates  it  upon  its  original  plane  and  in  the  proper 
iind  normal  sphere  of  its  being. 

Q.  3.  Is  it  to  be  understood,  therefore,  that  in  the 
sphere  of  chemistry  or  in  physics  or  elsewhere  matter  can 
i. jutralize  matter  or  serve  as  a  counteractant  thereof?* 

*  One  of  the  greatest  mistakes  that  the  world  has  ever  made 
i.-i  its  constant  and  fruitless  effort  in  some  form  to  propagate 
]  iiilanthropy  at  the  point  of  the  bayonet.  And  the  Church, 
v  ith  too  much  of  the  world-spirit  and  world-tactics,  as  well  as 
too  much  of  the  world's  false  philosophy,  is  constantly  commit- 
ting the  egregious  blunder  of  substituting  material  for  force  and 
culc.il  ting  quantity  for  quality.  There  is  great  zeal  for  God, 
l:ut  not  according  to  that  knowledge  which  sees  the  most  essen- 
tial entities  of  Christianity  in  their  true  and  immaterial  charac- 
ter, nnil  uses  them  in  accordance  with  the  purposes  of  their  or- 
din.'ition.  The  Church  has,  indeed,  "tasted  of  the  heavenly 
$  i't.  and  of  the  powers  of  the  world  to  come,"  but  its  ruling 
philosophy  seems  to  be  largely  unconscious  of  the  real  and  true 


DEATH'S  ANTIDOTE.  275 

A.  Not  at  all.  Matter,  having  the  negative  property 
of  inertia  and  being  but  a  passive  substance,  has  no  power 
over  itself,  much  less  can  one  portion  of  matter  have 
power  over  some  other  portion  thereof,  either  to  transfer 
or  change  any  of  its  properties.  It  is,  for  example,  the 
alkaline  force  resident  in  certain  kinds  of  material  which 
counteracts  or  neutralizes  the  force  resident  in  acidifer- 
ous  matter.  When  any  one  of  these  chemical  forces  is 
present  in  a  living  organism  in  such  quantity  or  under 
such  conditions  as  to  threaten  such  organism  with  disor- 
ganization or  death,  and  the  other  force  is  applied  as  a 
counteractant,  the  latter  may  be  called  an  antidote. 

Q.  4.  Is  sin  then  a  disease  that  calls  for  a  remedy  in 
the  form  of  an  antidote  in  order  that  death,  its  more 
fully  developed  form,  may  be  averted,  and  the  patient  ul- 
timately restored  to  spiritual  health? 

A.  Sin  is  that  abnormal  force  in  humanity  which 
throws  the  spiritual  side  or  quantity  of  human  nature—- 
and in  a  certain  consequential  sense  the  entire  being  of 
its  human  subject — into  a  diseased  condition.  The  great- 
est Philosopher  that  ever  blessed  the  world  with  a  revela- 
tion of  truth  upon  this  subject  declared  the  medical 
character  of  his  mission  among  men  by  announcing  the  im- 
plied and  tremendous  fact  which  underlies  his  own  self- 
evident  proposition:  "  They  that  be  whole  need  not  a 
physician,  but  they  that  are  sick." 

Q.  5.     Is  humanity  then  really  sick  unto  death? 

A.  The  whole  head  is  sick,  and  the  whole  heart  faint. 
From  the  sole  of  the  foot  even  unto  the  head  there  is  no 
soundness  in  it.  And  it  will  be  well  for  the  ^science  of 

counteractant  force  which  Heaven  has  placed  in  its  organism 
and  at  its  command,  and  through  which  alone  it  can  hope  to 
roll  back  the  popular  tide  of  iniquity  and  spiritual  wickedness 
in  high  places  by  neutralizing  those  immaterial  "  principalities 
and  powrers  "  which  have  a  deeper  and  darker  origin  than  mere 
"flesh  and  blood/' 


276  THE   SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

biology,  as  applied  to  the  human  nice  in  the  full  solution 
of  the  intricate  problem  of  human  life,  when  it  once  rec- 
ognizes the  organically  diseased  condition  of  abnormal 
humanity  as  a  fact  taught  by  Revelation  and  a  truth  con- 
firmed by  all  the  moans  and  groans  of  abnormal  human 
history. 

Q.  6.  What  then  is  the  antidote,  and  how  may  it  be 
administered  or  applied? 

A.  The  above  question  may  have  its  answer  expressed 
in  the  following  formula:  An  organism  once  brought 
under  the  indwelling  power  of  incipient  death  can  es- 
cape ultimate  disorganization  or  a  condition  of  endless 
abnormity,  only  as  a  higher  and  healthier  order  of  life 
reaches  it  at  some  point  in  the  earlier  stage  of  its  de- 
velopment, and  by  a  vital  contact  and  coalescence  with 
its  disordered  life  eliminates  therefrom  the  poison  which 
affects  it,  and  thus  rescues  it  from  the  dominion  of 
death. 

Q.  7.  Has  such  a  higher  life-force  been  introduced 
into  the  diseased  organism  of  humanity  at  any  time  in 
its  history  or  at  any  point  in  the  process  of  its  abnormal 
development? 

A.  This  question  involves  the  vital  point  of  all  the- 
ology worthy  of  the  name,  and  calls  for  Gilead's  most 
substantial  balm.  As  a  soteriological  question  it  crosses 
the  straight  path  of  legitimate  science  and  can  no  longer 
be  ignored  as  something  outside  of  its  proper  province. 
Substantialism  emphasizes  the  fact  that  such  a  higher 
life-force  has  been  introduced  into  the  organism  of  ab- 
normal humanity,  and  calls  for  a  proper  interpretation  of 
the  testimony  of  history  to  justify  the  claim. 

If  science  is  of  God,  it  has  as  much  right  as  religion  to 
appeal  to  history  for  the  justification  of  its  claims.  The 
pages  of  Scriptural  History,  even  though  they  should  be 
regarded  as  nothing  more  than  a  historical  record — and 
in  such  character  they  have  at  least  as  much  claim  upon 


DEATH'S  ANTIDOTE.  27? 

our  credence  as  the  chapters  of  accredited  profane  his- 
tory— are  good  authority  for  the  assertion  that  such  a 
higher  order  of  force  has  entered  the  organism  of  abnormal 
humanity.  Furthermore,  the  correct  reading  and  scien- 
tific study  of  all  subsequent  history — sacred  and  profane 
— as  well  as  all  human  experience,  so  far  as  it  has  been 
flavored  with  the  fruit  of  the  entrance  of  that  higher  life- 
force  into  the  race,  have  corroborated  the  statement  of 
the  Biblical  record.  Thus  the  record  which  claims 
inspiration  and  infallibility  for  itself;  all  sacred  his- 
tory subsequent  thereto;  and  all  legitimate  experience, 
join  their  concurrent  testimony  as  to  the  truth  of 
the  foregoing  claim.  Hence  it  follows  most  legiti- 
mately and  conclusively  that  all  systems  of  philosophy 
which  fail  to  take  this  fundamental  factor  into  their 
future  reckonings  must  remain  unscientific  and  finally 
perish  from  the  earth  to  make  room  for  something  better. 

Q.  8.  But  does  not  science  transcend  its  own  proper 
limits  when  it  attempts  to  study  the  deep  things  of  God? 

A.  It  does  not.  If  a  correct  knowledge  of  the  forces 
and  facts  of  Nature  assists  us  in  a  more  proper  interpreta- 
tion of  the  higher  facts  and  forces  of  Christianity,  it  is 
both  our  proper  privilege  and  imperative  duty  as  Chris- 
tian scientists,  to  avail  ourselves  of  all  the  help  thus- 
placed  within  our  reach;  especially  so  since  Christianity 
is  the  proper  corrective,  continuation  and  crowning  com- 
plement of  Nature,  rather  than  a  disjointed  section  of 
the  universe  out  of  all  connection  and  correspondence 
with  the  world's  present  order  of  things.* 

*  "  It  is  not,  of  course,  to  be  inferred  that  the  scientific 
method  will  ever  abolish  the  radical  distinctions  of  .the  spiritual 
world.  True  science  proposes  to  itself  no  such  general  leveling 
of  any  department.  .  .  .  Nature  is  not  a  mere  image  or  emblem 
of  the  spiritual.  It  is  a  working  model  of  the  spiritual.  In  the 
spiritual  world  the  same  wheels  revolve — bat  without  the  iron. 
The  same  figures  flit  across  the  stage,  the  same  processes  of 


278  THE  SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

Q.  9.  Was  not  the  Incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God,  ac- 
cording to  the  Scriptural  account  thereof,  something 
entirely  above  all  that  goes  before  it  in  the  order  of  Nat- 
ure—something supernatural — and  therefore  entirely 
above  the  proper  sphere  and  range  of  reason? 

A.  True  science  does  not  admit  that  there  is  anything 
in  the  universe  supernatural,  except  in  a  relative  sense. 
God  himself  is  natural — in  no  sense  above  himself — in 
the  realm  of  the  infinite.  The  most  orthodox  confes- 
sions call  Christ  "the  natural  Son  of  God/'  All  the 
facts  and  forces  of  Revelation — the  kingdom  of  God — are 
natural  in  the  sphere  of  Christianity.  Whenever  science 
or  religion  begins  to  shirk  from  the  line  of  its  proper 
mission  by  pleading  the  statute  of  limitation  on  the  false 
ground  of  alleged  absolute  snpernaturalness  in  any  one  of 
the  higher  realms  of  being,  it  has  either  hampered  itself 
by  a  false  philosophy,  or  lacks  courage  to  go  in  where 
God  has  made  it  possible  and  proper  for  his  rational 
creatures  to  enter  with  unsandaled  feet.  To  rule  the  In- 
carnation entirely  'out  of  the  range  of  Christian  science, 
would  be  to  deny  the  continuity  of  law  from  the  lower 
through  the  higher  orders  of  being,  and  to  impeach  the 
testimony  of  all  the  prophets  in  the  sanctuary  of  Nature. 

Q.  10.  What  prophecies  are  there  in  Nature  proclaim- 
ing the  Incarnation  an  ordained  necessity,  and  something 
entirely  in  harmony  with  the  world's  twofold  law  of  in- 
volution and  consequent  evolution? 

A.  All  Nature  is  prophetic  of  higher  things  to  come. 
The  plant  is  supernatural  to  the  mineral,  though  the 
mineral  be  not  conscious  of  the  fact  that  there  is  such 
vegetable  order  of  existence  entirely  above  it.  There  is 
unconscious  prophecy  in  the  fact  that  the  life-force  of 
the  plant  clothes  or  incarnates  itself  in  the  substance  of 

growth  go  on,  the  same  functions  are  discharged,  the  same  bio- 
logical laws  prevail — only  with  a  different  quality  of  bios." — 
Drummond's  "  Natural  Law  in  the  Spiritual  World,"  pp.  21-27. 


DEATH'S  ANTIDOTE.  279 

the  mineral  kingdom.  So,  too,  is  the  animal  supernat- 
ural to  the  plant,  and  what  an  adumbration  of  higher 
things  to  come  is  the  fact  that  the  life-force  of  the 
former  lavs  hold  of  all  things  subnascent  or  subnatural, 
availing  itself  of  the  force  of  chemism  in  matter  to 
clothe  itself  upon  with  that  which  is  beneath  it.  The 
same  is  true  of  the  human  kingdom  in  its  supernatural- 
ness  as  related  to  all  below.  The  life-force  of  the 
rational  lays  hold  of  the  lower  orders  and  is  C.vsi'r.  <d  !o 
subdue  all  things  unto  the  human.  Man's  life  ii  cjinu.tc'3 
itself  in  the  mineral,  vegetable  and  animal  sub. -tj-ncoS. 
Are  all  these  involutio-evolution  processes  to  be1  le-j; ;i d^-.l 
as  having  reached  their  final  culmination  in  m;  ii's  p-e.s- 
ent  order  of  being?  No!  The  cold  stones  from  bone. .  li 
and  the  glittering  stars  from  above  cry  out  against  the 
unreasonableness  of  such  a  supposition.  Why,  th  n, 
should  science  at  this  point  get  fut  of  breath  and  tl.r  w 
up  its  helpless  hands  in  token  of  unconditional  sum  ri- 
der-when  confronted  with  the  false  plea  of  absolve 
supernaturalness  in  the  higher  orders  of  the  natural? 
Man  is  supernatural  to  the  ox,  and  yet  tfee  ox  knowei  h 
his  owner;  of  course  not  as  man  knoweth  himself;  neither 
does  true  science  claim  to  be  able  by  searching  to  find 
out  God  as  the  Infinite  is  known  to  himself:  but  in  the 
sense  and  to  the  extent  that  he  has  shown  himself  unto 
man  in  Eevelation,  of  which  the  Incarnation  is  the  cen- 
tral fact,  and  before  whose  sacred  significance  true 
science  can  never  consent  to  shut  the  eyes  of  her  admira- 
tion, or  seal  her  lips  of  legitimate  inquiry. 

Q.  11.  But  is  not  the  Incarnation,  as  a  new  factor  in 
the  world's  organic  history,  something  to  be  seized  and 
understood  only  by  faith? 

A.  Faith  is  indispensable;  yet  what  is  faith,  object- 
ively considered,  but  a  new  organ*  in  humanity  which 
would  not  be  possible  therein  without  the  advent  of  the 
new  order  of  life  which  the  Incarnation  brought  into  its 


280  THE  SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

organism.  True  science  in  its  proper  and  comprehen- 
sive sense  includes  faith — that  substantial  faculty  or 
organ  which  recognizes  the  immaterial  and  otherwise  in- 
visible entities  of  being  and  factors  of  history  as  the  most 
real  and  dynamic  forces  of  the  universe.  It  is  not  a  faith 
which  either  contradicts  or  disregards  the  manifest  teach- 
ings of  either  Nature  or  Revelation.  Standing  in  proper 
relation  to  both  it  holds  them  in  proper  relation  to  each 
other.  It  is  this  reasonable  and  reasoning  faith  which 
enables  the  scientific  student  of  Revelation  and  the  Chris- 
tian disciple  of  Nature  to  "  understand  that  the  worlds 
were  framed  by  the  word  of  God," and  also  to  understand 
further  that  the  world  as  it  culminates  in  man  was  re- 
deemed by  the  same  incarnate  Word. 

Q.  12.  But  is  it  not  irreverent  for  Science  to  attempt 
an  entrance  where  angels  either  fear  or  fail  to  enter? 

A.  Christian  science***  is  more  likely  to  become  de- 
vout than  otherwise  at  the  manger  cradle  of  Immanuel. 
Besides,  if  Science,  after  it  has  availed  itself  of  an  attain- 
able knowledge  of  all  the  knowable  facts  and  forces  which 
the  God  of  Nature  and  Revelation  has  placed  at  its  ap- 
propriation and  command,  does  not  attempt  to  pass  the 
court  of  the  Gentiles  and  enter  with  reverential  attitude 
the  holy  place,  it  will  prove  itself  a  contemptible  coward 
before  the  eyes  of  angels,  God  and  men.* 

*  The  Incarnation  is.  indeed,  above  any  thing  which  the  human 
mind  has  been  called  upon  to  philosophize  about,  but  Christian 
scientists  do  not  for  any  such  reason  make  the  arbitrary  separa- 
tion between  natural  and  supernatural  for  the  convenient  pur- 
pose of  placing  one  order  of  being  under  the  range  of  human 
knowledge  and  the  other  under  the  reign  of  mystery.  Is  the  so- 
called  supernatural  more  absolutely  unintelligible  to  the  natural 
than  the  human  is  to  the  animal,  that  man  must  stand  with 
mock  modesty  at  the  very  threshold  of  the  powers  of  the  con 
descending  heavenly  world  while  "  all  the  trees  of  the  field  clap 
their  hands  "  at  the  coming  and  in  the  presence  of  the  incarnate 
majesty  of  their  Maker?  While  Christian  men  bend  worship- 


DEATH'S  ANTIDOTE.  281 

Q.  13.  But  does  not  the  foregoing  view  of  the  world's 
organic  unity  of  design  and  development  imply  that  the 
Incarnation  was  a  constitutional  necessity*  in  order  to 
the  full  rounding  out  of  the  one  grand  and  comprehen- 
sive purpose  of  Him  who  projected  the  universe  from 
his  own  substantial  self  that  it  might  roll  its  one  in- 
creasing and  unceasing  tide  of  declarative  glory  back  to 
his  substantial  throne? 

A.  It  is  so  implied.  To  start  forward  with  the  bare 
idea  that  the  Incarnation  was  designed  primarily  to 
serve  as  God's  opportunity  in  man's  extremity  is  to 
switch  the  whole  central  purpose  of  God  from  the 
eternally-ordained  and  well-ballasted  central  track  of  his 
providence  upon  an  infralapsarian  side  track  of  casual 
history,  in  order  that  Jehovah  might,  by  such  strategic 
means,  brought  in  by  the  promptings  of  a  fortunate 
after-thought,  checkmate  the  preceding  proceedings  of 


*  That  must  ever  be  a  false  and  mutilated  view  of  the  nature 
and  history  of  man,  which  rests  not  on  a  firm  apprehension  of 
his  true  relationship  to  God.  as  this  comes  out  ultimately  in  the 
Constitution  of  the  Messiah.  That  must  ever  be  a  false  and 
defective  view  of  the  nature  of  God,  as  related  to  the  world, 
which  stops  short  of  theanthropy,  as  the  true  and  necessary 
central  sun  that  serves  to  irradiate  and  complete  all  other  revela- 
tions by  which  he  is  known. — Dr.  Nevin,  in  Mercersburg  Review, 
1851,  p.  56. 

fully  before  the  Incarnate  Mystery,  Christian  science  recognizes 
it  as  a  mystery  with  many  mysterious  types  and  prophecies  in 
Nature.  Wherever  the  higher  order  of  life-force  condescends  to 
clothe  itself  with  the  elements  in  the  order  next  beneath,  it  is  ac- 
companied with  a  proclamation  of  the  general  law  specifically 
affirmed  in  the  angelic  enunciation  to  the  Virgin:  "  The  power 
of  the  Highest  shall  overshadow  thee."  When  the  vegetable 
takes  up  the  mineral  it  is  in  virtue  of  the  fact  that  "  the  power 
of  the  higher  overshadows"  and  inter-permeates  the  elements  of 
the  lower  order  of  being. 


282  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

the  devil,,  and  thus  drive  back  the  surging  tidal  waves  of 
the  world's  abnormity,  sorrow  and  death.* 

Q.  14.  What  would  have  been  the  course  of  the 
world's  history  as  regards  the  Incarnation,  if  humanity 
had  not  been  brought  under  the  power  of  death  by  the 
actualization  of  its  possibility  to  sin? 

*  The  only  proper  stand-point  for  both  science  and  religion 
is  the  christologic  principle  as  enshrined  in  the  theanthropic 
person  of  Immanuel.  From  this  common  and  commanding 
point  of  view  Jehovah  may  look  down,  and  man  may  look  up 
with  mutual  admiration.  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time, 
except  as  the  latter  has  become  visible  through  the  revelation  of 
himself  in  the  only  begotten  Son,  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the 
Father;  and  it  is  equally  true  that  God  hath  seen  no  man  at 
any  time,  except  as  he  has  viewed  Mm  from  the  grand,  central 
observatory  of  the  Incarnation.  God  can  look  upon  his  works 
with  complacency  only  as  He  sees  them  in  their  completeness. 
Man  without  Christ  would  be  as  incomplete  as  Nature  without 
man.  As  man  is  the  crown  of  Nature,  Christ  is  the  crown  of 
man.  All  sound  christological  thinking  must  come  finally  to 
hold  the  Incarnation  as  essential  to  the  actualization  of  that 
eternal  and  supreme  thought  in  the  mind  of  Jehovah,  which 
finds  its  full  expression  in  the  fact  and  form  of  the  Universe. 
Under  any  other  view,  creation  can  be  regarded  as  only  the  first 
few  spans  of  a  bridge  extending  from  a  finite  shore  toward  the 
unknown  and  unknowable  center  of  some  infinite  ocean  until  it 
comes  to  the — the  jumping-off  place. 

Jesus  Christ  is  not  only  the  beginning  and  ending,  but  also 
the  center  of  God's  creation;  and  a  proper  recognition  of  this 
cardinal,  christocentric  fact  is  the  beginning  of  all  true  investi- 
gation into  whatever  is  knowable  of  God,  man,  and  Nature; 
and  nothing  is  truly  known  or  knowable  of  either,  except  as 
eaoh  is  searched  and  seen  in  proper  relation  to  each  other.  To 
this  end  was  Emmanuel  born,  that  he  might  bear  witness  to 
the  truth.  His  testimony  was  given,  not  in  the  way  of  affirming 
the  correctness  of  some  abstract  and  theoretic  statement,  but  by 
manifesting  himself  as  the  personal  embodiment  of  THE  TRUTH, 
and  the  key  to  the  proper  apprehension  of  all  relative  truths, 
whether  in  religion  or  science.  This,  then,  we  repeat,  is  the 
proper  point  of  observation,  especially  for  our  unprecedented 


DEATH'S  ANTIDOTE.  283 

A.  The  Messiah,  as  the  "  King  Immortal,"  would 
have  taken  his  position  of  honor  at  the  head  of  the  race 
by  becoming  bone  of  its  bone  and  flesh  of  its  flesh,  and 
thus  lead  his  human  subjects  on  their  way  to  glory  with- 
out the  necessity  of  an  antidote  for  its  disease  and  a 
battle  with  its  enemy. 

age  of  devotional  and  intellectual  activity.  It  should  be  chosen 
for  its  commanding  eminence,  and  occupied  for  its  universal 
centrality.  From  this  point  the  Christian  philosopher,  making 
use  of  all  the  helps  afforded  in  Revelation  and  Nature,  exercis- 
ing the  functions  of  both  faith  and  reason,  may  sweep  the  en- 
tire religio-scientific  field  of  known  and  knowable  truth,  and 
demonstrate  to  all  the  world  that  God's  great  handiwork  is  not 
a  mere  stupendous  pile  of  jumbled  irrelativities,  but  the  well- 
designed  expression  of  ONE  eternal  thought,  in  which  and  sub- 
ordinate to  which  all  other  thoughts,  as  well  as  all  expressions 
thereof,  are  for  each,  and  each  for  all,  and  all  for  Him  who  is 
over  all,  God  blessed  for  evermore. 

The  above  advocacy  of  the  one  cardinal  point  in  the  religio- 
scientific  compass  implies,  of  course,  that  the  Incarnation  be 
accepted  and  held  in  its  proper  and  permanent  sense.  The  old 
heresies  of  Gnosticism.  Ebionism,  Eutychianism,  and  Nestorian- 
ism  must  be  guarded  against  as  ever  seeking  to  repeat  them- 
selves in  the  onward  march  of  the  most  earnest  christological 
inquiry.  To  be  of  any  assistance  in  explaining  the  meaning  of 
Nature,  in  studying  the  dignity  and  destiny  of  man,  in  search- 
ing to  find  out  God,  and,  in  short,  to  serve  as  the  anthropological 
key  to  the  problem  of  the  universe,  the  Incarnation  must  be 
apprehended  as  a  fact  of  concrete  and  substantial  force  in  the 
history  of  the  world's  life.  The  Son  of  God  did  not  merely 
inshrine  Himself  in  a  human  soul,  and  encamp  for  a  few  years 
in  the  body  of  a  man,  but  assumed,  for  all  eternity,  the  sub- 
stance of  humanity  in  its  generic  sense,  so  that  he  became  the 
second'  Adam,  the  head  of  creation,  "  in  whom  are  gathered 
together  in  one  all  things  in  Christ,  both  which  are  in  Heaven 
and  which  are  on  earth."  The  foregoing  also  presumes  the 
truth  of  a  postulate  not  generally  accepted  by  the  most  popular 
theological  thinking  of  the  world,  viz.:  The  Incarnation  would 
have  become  a  reality  in  the  history  of  the  world,  even  if  man 
had  not  sinned. 


2$4  THE   SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

Q.  15.  Then  the  actualization  of  the  possibility  of  sin 
made  it  necessary  that  the  Messiah  should  also  become 
Redeemer  and  Sacrifice? 

A.  Just  so;*  and  that  the  life-force  which  was 
brought  into  humanity  through  the  Incarnation  should 
neutralize  the  false  force  therein,  eliminate  the  conse- 
quent elements  of  disease,  and  counteract  the  workings 
of  its  moral  poison  according  to  the  working  whereby  the 
Fountain  of  life  was  "able  to  subdue  all  things  unto 
Himself." 

Q.  16.  Then  Christ  possessed  in  his  own  person  a 
life-force  which  was  and  is  the  antidote  of  death? 

A.  This  is  the  central  tenet  of  "  New  Theology/' 
known  for  nearly  a  half  century  as  Mercersburg  TJieology, 
yet  it  can  never  be  consistently  held  and  advocated  ex- 
cept from  the  standpoint  of  The  Substantial  Philosophy,  \ 

*  This  is  not  offered  to  the  intelligent  reader  as  something 
new.  It  has  been  affirmed  by  some  of  the  profoundest  thinkers 
in  the  past,  and  has  more  recently  received  additional  emphasis 
from  many  of  the  most  advanced  theologians  in  Europe,  and 
especially  in  Germany,  among  whom  may  be  mentioned  Dr.  J. 
H.  A.  Ebrard,  Dr.  J.  J.  Van  Oosterzee,  Bishop  Martensen,  Dr. 
Liebner,  and  Dr.  J.  A.  Dorner.  Neither  would  we  have  the  im- 
pression go  abroad  that  we  are  entirely  ignorant  of  the  difficulties 
which  confront  this  theory  in  the  questionable  light  of  some  of 
our  present  prevailing  exegesis.  The  Holy  Scriptures  are  gen- 
erally approached  and  interpreted  from  either  the  harmortolog- 
ical  or  sorteriological  standpoint,  rather  than  from  the  proper 
theanthropological  point  of  view.  This,  we  think,  is  a  mistake. 
The  entrance  of  sin  into  the  world  laid  upon  Immanuel  only  the 
additional  necessity  of  humiliation,  sorrow,  and  pain;  or,  in  the 
language  of  Dr.  Liebner:  "  Sin  served  only  to  bring  in  this  modi- 
fication, which,  indeed,-  reaches  far  and  deep,  that  now  Christ 
appears  also  as  a  Redeemer  and  Sacrifice."  Creation,  not  the 
perversion  thereof,  drew  after  it  the  complementive  act  and  fact 
of  the  Incarnation. 

f  Substantialism,  as  applied  to  Christianity,  aims  to  bring  out 
a  deeper  meaning  of  the  atonement  than  that  which  usually 


DEATH'S  ANTIDOTE.  285 

as  founded  by  Dr.  Hall,  and  partially  formulated  in  the 
volume  of  this  book. 

Q.  17.  What  then  is  the  primary  idea  of  the  atone- 
ment? 

A.  The  restoration  of  man  to  himself — to  a  normal 
condition  of  his  being — to  purity,  freedom,  health,  and 
consequently  to  God,  rather  than  the  reverse  order,  as 
held  in  the  old  Anselmic  theory  of  reconciling  God  to 
men,  as  though  the  mission  of  theology  was  principally 
to  try  to  help  God  out  of  trouble  and  make  him  consist- 
ent with  himself,  instead  of  showing,  in  the  light  of 
Revelation  and  science,  how  God  is  helping  man  out  of 
trouble. 

Q.  18.  Is  there,  then,  anything  in  The  Substantial 
Philosophy  not  in  harmony  with  the  Scriptural  represen- 
tation of  the  Atonement? 

A.  Indeed,  there  is  not.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  in 
beautiful  harmony  therewith,  but  positively  at  variance 
with  many  of  the  most  popular  theories  thereof. 

Q.  19.  Then  the  Incarnation  brought  a  new  life  into 
the  organism  of  humanity? 

A.  It  brought  in  the  life  of  the  Word,  which  became 
flesh,  and  by  such  assumption  of  our  nature  constituted 
a  source  of  new  life  and  salvation  to  men.  There  is, 
therefore,  a  Divine-human  life-fountain  in  the  very  or- 

floats  upon  the  surface  of  the  undulatory  theory  of  God's  great 
gospel  to  man.  As  a  philosophy  it  occupies  the  position  from 
which  it  can  consistently  emphasize  the  life-force  of  the  Historic 
Christ  as  something  more  dynamic  in  religion  than  even  all  the 
inexpressible  agony  of  a  dying  Redeemer.  It  proposes  to  sweep 
away  the  miserable  travesties  that  now  obstruct  the  highway 
of  a  better  theology,  and  open  the  road  to  a  clearer  and  more 
scientific  apprehension  of  God's  word,  so  that  faith  and  reason 
may  rejoice  together  in  the  blessedness  of  the  great  truth  that 
"  if,  when  we  were  enemies,  we  were  reconciled  to  God  by  the 
death  of  his  Son,  much  more,  being  reconciled,  we  shall  be 
saved  by  his  life,"" 


286  THE   SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

ganism  of  humanity,,  to  which  all  individual  human  be- 
ings are  in  some  way  invited  by  the  Spirit  and  the  Bride. 

Q.  20.  What  was  the  direct  or  immediate  effect  of  tlje 
entrance  of  this  new  and  higher  life  into  the  organism  of 
humanity? 

A.  The  assumption  of  humanity  by  the  Son  of  God, 
and  the  consequent  bringing  into  it  of  this  higher  life- 
force,  was  its  restoration  to  its  normal  state — a  state  of 
moral  purity,  which  again  involved  the  possibility  of 
normal  development  to  the  highest  dignity  and  glory 
attainable  upon  the  plane  of  the  finite. 

Q.  21.  Was  humanity  as  to  its  entirety  saved  by  the 
Incarnation? 

A.  Everything  essential  to  the  constitution  of  hu- 
manity was  actually  saved  in  the  person  of  the  Redeemer.* 
The  salvation  of  all  human  individuals,  which  was  ren- 
dered possible  in  the  wise  and  organic  economy  of  the 
kingdom,  remedial  in  its  constitution,  is  not  essential  to 
the  salvation  of  humanity.  The  tendency  toward  indi- 
vidualization  is  only  a  law  of  the  development  of  the  life- 
force  (as  shown  in  Chapter  XI.)  in  humanity;  therefore 
humanity  does  not  necessarily  include  the  sum  total  of 
all  human  individuals. 

Q.  22.  Did  the  entrance  or  this  new  order  of  life  in 
any  way  affect  all  individuals  of  the  race  in  their  relation 

*  The  old  controversy  as  to  the  extent  of  the  atonement — 
whether  the  atonement  is  general  or  limited — was  little  better 
than  the  chattering  of  magpies.  Let  it  once  be  admitted  that 
humanity  was  assumed  by  the  Word,  and  saved  as  to  all  that  it 
essentially  involved,  and  there  will  he  no  room  for  such  chip- 
basket  divinity,  and  no  reason  to  dispute  about  the  question  of 
the  extent  of  the  atonement.  Atonement  has  been  made  for  all 
that  is  essential  to  humanity,  and  if  any  individuals  of  the  race 
are  not  healed  of  their  moral  malady,  the  cause  can  be  found  in 
the  fact  that  the  sufficiency  of  the  remedy  is  not  efficiently  ap- 
plied to  some  of  the  individual  inmates  in  the  general  hospital 
of  the  diseased  race. 


DEATH'S  ANTIDOTE.  287 

to  God  and  that  high  attainable  destiny  involved  in  the 
problem  of  human  life? 

A.  It  did.  That  which  affects  an  organism  affects 
all  its  parts — parts  in  possibility  and  parts  in  actuality. 

Q.  23.  Will  all  individuals  of  the  race,  in  its  abnor- 
mal state,  become  members  of  the  new  organism  which 
was  started  in  the  Christ  upon  its  normal  course  of  devel- 
opment toward  the  attainment  of  its  proper  dignity  and 
destiny. 

A.  Such  an  attainment  was  rendered  possible,  but  ifc 
.does  not  appear  nrobable  either  in  the  light  of  Revelation 
or  Science.  It  has  been  clearly  shown  in  previous  chap- 
ters of  this  book  that  physical  forces  never  enter  matter  in 
such  a  way  as  to  do  violence  to  the  lower  orders  and  ele- 
ments of  being;  that  some  kinds  and  combinations  of 
matter  have  no  ability  to  receive  certain  force-elements 
of  Nature,  and  when  that  ability  does  not  exist  in  matter 
the  said  certain  forces  do  not  operate  upon  said  matter. 
Now  if  this  same  parity  of  reasoning  be  carried,  accord- 
ing to  the  law  of  the  continuity  of  law,  into  the  realm  of 
biology,  and  into  that  department  of  biology  which  treats 
of  the  forces  and  laws  of  Christianity,  it  will  lead  us  on  a 
parallel  line  of  induction  to  the  inevitable  conclusion  that 
while  Christ  is  the  Saviour  of  all  men  only  unto  them  that 
receive  him  can  he  give  power  to  become  the  sons  of  God 
in  his  reorganized  family,  even  to  them  that  believe  on 
his  name. 

Q.  24.  But  is  there  not  a  fallacy  in  the  above  reason- 
ing, since  the  respective  realms  of  physics  and  biology  are 
so  very  different? 

A.  Not  at  all.  The  difference  rather  strengthens 
every  joint  and  member  of  the  syllogism,  and  emphasizes 
the  legitimacy  of  the  conclusion  reached.  If  Nature 
never  allows  her  forces  to  do  violence  to  helpless  and  un- 
conscious matter,  it  is  not  reasonable  to  suppose  that  vio- 
lence would  be  a  law  in  the  higher  kingdom  whose  mis- 


288  THE   SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

sion  in  the  realm  of  humanity  is  to  suppress  lawlessness 
and  grant  its  candidates  for  citizenship  the  greatest 
amount  of  liberty  consistent  with  the  nature  of  rational 
and  responsible  beings. 

Q.  25.  Why  do  some  individuals  savingly  receive  the 
Messiah  with  the  life -force  fontally  found  in  His  person, 
while  others  echo  the  old  infidel  cry:  "  Away  with  Him?" 

A.  For  the  same  general  reason  that  the  sun  while  it 
affects  all  matter  found  in  the  solar  system  does  not  send 
its  force  into  resistible  opacity  or  into  matter  which  has 
not  the  ability  to  receive  the  scintillations  of  its  light.  . 

Q.  26.  But  does  not  the  proclamation  of  the  presence 
and  power  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom  create  ability  in  all 
human  individuals  to  receive  the  saving  benefits  thereof? 

A.  The  proclamation  of  God's  remedial  kingdom  in 
the  world  is  nothing  more  than  the  life-force  thereof  as- 
serting itself  among  men.  In  such  self-assertion  it  ex- 
tends the  substantial  threads  of  its  dynamic  energy 
toward  all;  yet  it  can  no  more  draw  men  who  are  desti- 
tute of  receptivity,  and  who  are  determined  to  remain 
in  such  destitution,  into  the  circles  of  its  saving  embrace 
than  a  charged  magnet  can  lift  up  particles  of  glass  or 
sawdust.  Ability  cannot  be  created  where  there  is  no 
reception  of  creative  energy.  If,  as  seen  in  a  former 
chapter,  the  peculiar  arrangement  of  the  particles  in 
some  kinds  of  matter  by  virtue  of  cohesive  force  prevents 
the  entrance  thereinto  of  a  luminous  force,  it  should  not 
be  considered  as  a  thing  without  prophecy  or  precedent, 
that  the  peculiar  arrangement  or  derangement  of  ele- 
ments and  faculties  in  the  constitution  of  certain  rational 
individuals  should  render  them  entirely  impervious  to  the 
life-force  of  the  Messiah. 

Q.  27.  If,  then,  some  individuals  should  remain  for- 
ever in  their  diseased  condition,  are  they  individually  re- 
sponsible for  their  own  sad  future  state? 


DEATH'S  ANTIDOTE.  280 

A.  Indeed  they  arc,  even  though  their  cases  should 
become  chronic  for  all  eternity. 

Q.  28.  How  can  that  be  made  to  appear  in  the  light 
of  justice? 

A.  If  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  or  the  presentation 
of  this  life-force  offers  ability  to  receive  it,  it  does  not 
for  that  reason  take  away  the  ability  not  to  receive  it. 
Sick  men,  with  the  prescription  in  their  hands  and  pills 
in  their  mouths,  still  have  the  power  to  throw  physic  to 
the  dogs. 

Q.  29.  But  the  foregoing  does  not  take  into  consider- 
ation God's  great  benevolence.  Does  not  Christ's  love 
for  the  world  move  him  to  save  all? 

A.  Love  is  life  in  activity — the  highest  form  of  activ- 
ity that  can  possibly  be  predicated  of  life,  whether  infi- 
nite or  finite.  Love  works  according  to  the  law  of  the 
life  of  which  it  is  phenomenal  or  expressive.  Therefore 
it  cannot  do  what  life  has  no  power  to  do.* 

Q.  30.  How  does  this  life-force  of  the  Messiah  reach 
the  individuals  of  an  abnormal  race  to  bring  them  into 
a  normal  state  and  saving  relation  to  himself,  thus  anti- 
doting  in  such  individuals  the  poison  of  sin,  and  neutral- 
izing the  power  of  death? 

A.  Life-force,  like  the  physical  forces  of  Nature, 
travels  according  to  its  own  law  of  conduction,  and 
though  its  own  peculiar  media. 

*  Love  is  not  an  entity,  but  the  expression  of  an  entity. 
When  the  Scriptures  represent  that  God  is  love,  they  do  not 
teach  that  he  is  love  in  the  sense  of  a  Divine  emotion,  but  that 
love  is  the  highest  form  in  which  his  essence  goes  out  toward 
the  objects  of  his  benevolence.  So,  too,  thought  is  not  an  en- 
tity, but  an  action  or  expression  of  a  rational  entity  or  thinker. 
To  claim  the  salvation  of  all  individuals  on  the  ground  of  God's 
infinite  compassion  is  to  draw  a  false  conclusion  from  false  phi- 
losophy, in  false  sympathy,  through  a  rickety  syllogism  of  false 
logic. 


290  THE   SUBSTANTIAL    PHILOSOPHY. 

Q.  31.  What  is  the  fundamental  feature  of  Chris- 
tianity's law  of  conduction  or  propagation? 

A.  Christianity  propagates  itself  through  media  or 
intervening  substance  between  which  and  itself  there  is  an 
affinity  or  something  in  common,  and  something  in  the 
process  of  assimilation.  Christianity  after  being  started 
as  a  new  creation*  began  to  reach  out  toward  abnormal 

*  Christianity  is  (1)  a  new  creation,  as  real  and  distinct  as  that 
which  in  the  beginning  included  the  heavens  and  the  earth. 
(2)  It  has  an  objective  and  entitative  existence,  holding  in  the 
organic  union  of  the  substance  of  the  Son  of  God  with  the  essen- 
tial substance  of  humanity,  in  the  sense  that  "  the  word  (Logos) 
was  made  (assumed)  flesh."  (3)  This  new  creation  heads  in 
Christ,  "  the  last  Adam,"  "  the  Lord  from  heaven,"  the  "  quicken- 
ing Spirit,",  even  as  the  old  creation  culminated  in  the  first 
Adam,  "a  living  soul,"  (1  Cor.  15).  It  is  a  kingdom  in  organic 
unity,  as  well  as  a  unity  in  expansive  and  progressive  evolution. 
Christ  the  true  Witness,  the  Beginning  of  the  (new)  creation 'of 
God  (Rev.  iii.  14),  is  the  primordial  parent  (Is.  ix.  6),  of  the 
peculiar  progeny  born  of  the  very  substance  of  Him  "  of  whom 
the  whole  family  in  heaven  and  earth  is  named  *'  (Eph.  iii.  15). 
(4)  This  kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand,  replete  with  substantial 
forces,  for  the  solution  of  the  most  intricate  and  complicate 
problems  of  the  universe,  and  for  the  salvation  of  all  assimi- 
lable subjects  in  the  sub-kingdom  of  humanity.  (5)  Having  an 
objective  existence,  in  an  organic  entity,  it  is  not  dependent 
upon  subjective  repentance,  faith  or  experience,  however  essen- 
tial these  conditions  and  organs  of  receptivity  on  the  part  of  the 
individual  who  becomes  a  citizen  of  the  royal  realm,  and  a 
consequent  recipient  of  its  saving  virtue.  (G)  In  a  word, 
Christianity  is  life— not  a  mere  attenuated,  human  life,  but  a 
distinct  effluence  of  the  life  of  God,  which  was  not  in  the  world 
in  the  same  sense,  and  to  the  same  extent,  before  the  Incarna- 
tion. "  In  Him  was  life,  and  the  life  became  the  light  of  men." 
This  life  is  not  merely  a  divine  "  mode  of  motion,"  but  the  very 
substance  of  things  hoped  for  by  the  deepest  yearnings  of  the 
substantial  human  soul. 

It  follows  further  that  Christianity,  as  to  its  inner  organic 
entity,  is  not  molded  from  without,  or  made  dependent  upon 
its  form,  as  Materialism  teaches  concerning  the  dependence  of 
the  soul  upon  the  body,  and  as  some  acousticians  still  teach, 


DEATH'S  ANTIDOTE.  1 

humanity  or  individuals  therein  through  that  portion  of 
the  race  already  in  the  process  of  becoming  normal—  i.  e., 
that  portion  already  in  the  convalescent  stage. 

Q.  32.  But  does  not  God  as  a  spirit,  and  as  the  Per- 
sonal, Supreme  and  Infinite  Force  of  the  Universe,  move 
without  law  and  without  reference  to  any  specifically  or- 
dained channel  or  media  of  communicating  himself  and 
his  saving  benefits  to  men? 

A.  God  is  always  obedient  to  his  own  laws,  and  is 
therefore  no  more  likely  to  direct  that  Christianity 
should  be  propagated  without  wisely  ordained  lines  of^ 
travel  than  that  he  would-  have  ordained  that  sound,  heat 
or  electricity  should  be  conveyed  independent  of  their 
peculiar  media  and  modes  of  conduction.* 

*  God,  like  Nature,  despises  a  vacuum,  and  prefers  to  send 
out  his  agents  through  inhabited  space.  As  seen  in  Chapter  X. , 
sound,  being  a  substance,  cannot  travel  except  through  sub- 
stance, and  its  rate  of  speed  is  governed  and  accelerated  by  the 
affinity  it  finds  in  its  media  of  conduction.  Heat  travels  best 
along  that  portion  of  an  iron  rod  already  permeated  by  heat- 
force;  and  electricity  could  not  travel  with  such  accuracy  and 
in  such  an  astounding  rate  of  speed  in  the  intelligible  convey 
ance  of  messages  except  by  the  copper- wire  route.  Why,  then, 
should  so  much  of  our  modern  Protestantism  become  crazy  upon 
the  baseless  supposition  and  unphilanthropical  theory  that  the 
Messiah  and  Christianity  are  to  move  forward  in  the  accom- 
plishment of  their  peculiar  mission  in  the  world  without  corre- 
sponding media  of  conduction  and  methods  of  operation  ? 

affirming  the  dependence  of  "  sound  "  upon  the  medium  of  its 
conduction.  Like  all  other  orders  of  life,  in  bending  its  energies 
toward  externalization,  Christianity  is  free  to  take  and  change 
its  own  form  in  the  organic  onflow  of  its  mission,  until  it  com- 
pletes its  terrestrial  history  in  that  final  fullness  and  form  which 
shall  respond  to  the  pattern  within:  and  while  thus  free,  it  is 
also  bound  to  take  only  such  form  as  its  inner  model  constitu- 
tionally involves.  That  final  form  will  be  the  triumphant 
church,  the  body  of  Christ,  the  fullness  (complement)  of  him 
that  filleth  all  in  all.  (Eph.  i.  23). 


292  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

Q.  33.  What  is  the  organic  wholeness  of  those  Messi- 
anic forces,  media  of  communication  and  propagation 
and  proper  methods  of  operation  called? 

A,  Kevelation  and  true  science  join  heartily  in  de- 
nominating it  the  Church  or  Body  of  Christ. 

Q.  34.  What  is  comprehended  in  the  true  idea  of  a 
body,  and  what  is  expressed  by  the  scientifico-scriptural 
term  thus  employed? 

A.     The  church  as  Christ's  "  body  "*  and  "  fullness  "  is  a 

*  That  is  no  mere  flourish  of  inspired  rhetoric  which  represents 
the  Church  as  "  the  body. of  Christ."  A  "  body  "  is  not  a  mere 
aggregation  of  material  thrown  together  in  convenient  and 
comely  shape,  but  an  organism  of  invisible  forces  and  plastic 
powers  which  ever  seeks  to  complement  itself  in  material  form. 
As  the  human  body  takes  up  elements  of  the  lower  kingdoms — 
mineral,  vegetable,  animal — permeates  them  by  its  own  pow- 
ers, assimilates  the  assimilable,  and  throws  off  the  excrementi- 
tious  matter,  so  is  it  the  mission  of  the  Church,  as  the  embodi- 
ment of  the  higher  kingdom  of  heaven,  to  receive  the  salvable 
elements  of  the  sub-kingdom  of  humanity,  quicken  them  by  the 
heavenly  life  of  which  it  is  made  the  bearer,  and,  when  heedless 
indifference  or  hellish  resistance  does  not  thwart  the  heavenly 
purpose,  assimilate  them  into  the  substance,  and  make  them 
very  members  incorporate  in  that  mystical  body  and  kingdom 
which  "  ruleth  over  all."  Again,  just  as  it  is  possible  for  a 
human  system  to  take  into  the  stomach  too  much  foreign 
matter  for  thorough  digestion  and  consequent  health,  so  is  it 
also  possible  for  the  Church  to  become  gorged  with  indigestible 
flesh  and  thus  disturb  the  functions  of  the  religious  stomach, 
develop  unmistakable  symptoms  of  ecclesiastical  dyspepsia, 
and  bring  a  morbid  condition  of  piety  into  the  most  pretentious 
portions  of  Christendom.  According  to  the  view  of  the  writer, 
this  is  now  the  peculiarly  alarming  condition  of  the  Church 
throughout  the  civilized  world;  and  if  our  opinion  is  founded 
upon  fact,  it  is  certainly  the  part  of  wisdom  to  institute  an 
earnest  inquiry  both  as  to  the  cause  and  the  cure  of  the  chronic 
malady. 

The  common  mistake  is  made  in  locating  the  disease  in  one 
or  several  of  the  \nere  symptoms  thereof.  Pelagius  was  finally 
condemned,  but  semi-Pelagianism  is  the  very  devil  in  false 


DEATH'S  ANTIDOTE.  293 

concrete  entitative  organism  vitalized  and  energized  with 
the  highest  form  of  life-force  in  the  universe  of  God,  and 
through  which  the  powers  of  the  heavenly  world  are  con- 
stantly reaching  down  and  into  the  realm  of  abnormal  hu- 
manity, communicating  the  remedial  force  fontally  pres- 
ent in  Immanuel  to  such  as  have  the  ability  to  receive  it.* 

*  "  The  Protestant  doctrine  does  not  identify  Christianity  and 
the  visible  church,  but  neither  does  it  separate  them.  The  rela- 
tion between  the  two  has  been  explained  by  introducing  the 
term  ideal  church  and  actual  church.  We  may  explain  here 
that  in  our  use  of  the  term  ideal,  we  do  not  mean  the  church  in 
thought,  or  as  a  mere  mental  conception,  as  antithetic  to  real 
but  in  a  substantial  sense  in  antithesis  to  the  actual,  just  as  we 
speak  of  the  idea  of  the  beautiful,  the  true  and  the  good  as  ob- 
jective substantial  entities."— Rev.  T.  G.  Apple,  D.  D.,  LL.  D., 
Professor  of  Theology,  Lancaster,  Pa. 

theology,  once  let  loose  and  still  at  large  deceiving  the  nations. 
Pelagianism  grounds  itself  in  a  superficial  view  of  the  moral 
condition  and  real  necessities  of  humanity  as  the  subject  of 
salvation  from  sin.  The  popular  theology  of  this  age,  .however 
emphatic  the  language  of  the  confessions  may  be  in  the  oppo- 
site directions,  is  considerably  dipped  with  Pelagian  error.  It 
does  not  regard  the  human  family  as  very  seriously  affected 
with  anything  like  the  epidemic  essence  of  moral  death.  The 
term  "regeneration"  is  frequently,  if  not  commonly,  used  to 
emphasize  the  importance  of  conversion,  while  the  latter  means 
nothing  more  than  a  conviction  that  something  wrong  has  been 
done,  accompanied  with  an  honest  intention  to  quit  making 
such  mistakes.  This  is  quackery  in  its  most  unsoteriological 
perfection.  No  wonder  that  so  little  account  is  made  of  the 
positive  and  substantial  entities  of  the  Christian  religion  where 
there  is  no  clear  discovery  of  a  necessity  for  such  a  healing  balm 
in  Gilead.  An  empirical  diagnosis  leads  to  empirical  thera- 
peutics. 

As  long  as  such  theological  poverty  prevails  in  molding  the 
sentiment  and  in  shaping  much  of  the  questionable  workings  of 
Christendom,  it  matters  but  little  what  theory  of  doctrine, 
church  government,  or  religious  customs  may  be  in  the  ascend- 
ancy. Calvinism  is  the  finest  system  of  metaphysical  abstrac- 
tions ever  wrought  out  in  the  laboratory  of  human  brains:  and 


294  THE   SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

Q.  35.  Through  what  channels  or  agencies  in  the 
church  is  this  remedial  force  conducted  to  the  individual 
members  of  the  diseased  human  race? 

A.  Through  the  Word  and  the  sacraments — by  procla- 
mation and  propagation. 

Q.  36.  Is  there  anything  in  the  human  body  pro- 
phetic of  these  peculiar  functions  of  the  church? 

A.  Indeed  there  is.  This  is  the  very  thing  primarily 
emphasized  in  the  analogous  reasonings  of  both  Revela- 
tion and  Science.  Life,  resident  in  the  corpuscles  of  the 

yet,  blind  to  the  beauty  of  the  concrete,  and  deaf  to  the  music 
of  heaven's  choral  symphonies  in  the  organic  conception  of  the 
truth,  as  a  mere  theory  of  the  Divine  Being's  mode  of  motion  in 
the  "plan"  of  redemption,  it  does  not  contain  "irresistible 
grace  "  enough  to  insure  the  final  perseverance  of  one  poor  saint. 
Arminianisni  emphasizes  the  other  side  of  the  same  abstraction. 
It  may  be  regarded  as  a  theory  of  the  mode  of  motion  on  the 
part  of  fallen  humanity  in  its  fruitless  struggles  to  transcend 
the  limits  of  its  own  helplessness.  Transubstantiation,  consub- 
stantiation  and  the  negative  sacramentarian  theories  of  unsub- 
stantiation  would  do  well  to  remain  silent  for  about  the  space  of 
a  half  hour,  that  the  basic  and  primary  question  of  immaterial 
SUBSTANTIATION  in  being  may  have  a  respectful  hearing  in  the 
court  of  Christendom.  Until  that  point  is  reached,  it  would  be 
unwise  to  make  any  expensive  preparation  for  an  early  dawning 
of  the  millennium.  Evangelical  Alliances,  Pan-Assemblies, 
Holiness  Convocations.  Church  Congresses  and  Salvation  Armies 
may  serve  to  reveal  the  existence  of  a  felt  want,  and  even  act 
as  agents  in  leveling  down  the  mountains  and  filling  up  the  val- 
leys, but  they  can  never  make  the  comers  thereunto  perfect. 
Better  things  are  required.  Not  the  least  of  these  things  is  a  bet- 
ter philosophy.  It  may  be  said  that  true  religion  has  nothing  to 
do  with  philosophy.  Possibly  not;  yet  it  occurs  to  us,  just  at  this 
writing,  that  fatee  philosophy  has  had  enough  to  do  with  religion 
to  impede  the  proper  progress  of  Christianity  in  the  world.  And 
now,  in  this  approximate  dawn  of  her  twentieth  century,  Zioii 
unconsciously  sighs  and  seeks  for  something  to  roll  away  the 
false  philosopher's  stone  from  the  door  of  the  sepulcher  ot 
Truth,  that  the  invisible  forces  and  consequent  glory  of  her  sal- 
vation may  appear. 


DEATH'S  ANTIDOTE.  295 

blood,  travels  out  upon  its  mission  through  the  arteries  in 
the  body  to  lay  hold  of  substances  within  the  compass  of 
its  grasp,  assimilating  them  so  far  as  they  are  assimilable, 
and  repelling  those  substances  that  do  not  yield  to  the 
plastic  power  of  the  life-force  which  thus  permeates  the 
body  and  perpetuates  it  by  such  constant  process  of  as- 
similation. So  with  the  church  which  is  the  body  of 
Christ.  The  life-force  of  the  great  Redeemer  and  Physi- 
cian of  diseased  man  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  Heaven's 
mere  mode  of  motion  operating  in  an  abstract  way,  but 
like  all  other  forces,  whether  in  chemistry,  physics  or 
biology,  moves  out  upon  its  mission,,  not  only  according 
to  its  own  law,  but  also  through  its  o^n  peculiar  chan- 
nels of  conduction.  The  main  channels  are  the  Word* 
and  the  sacraments  which  may  be  regarded  as  the  nerve 
and  arterial  lines  in  the  body  of  Christ,  through  which 
the  life-force,  as  authority  from  the  Head  and  vitality 
from  the  Heart  of  a  redeemed  humanity,  approaches, 
confronts,  calls  upon  and  enables  men  to  arise  from  their 
death-state  of  trespasses  and  sins. 

Q.  37.  When  this  life-force  of  Christ  thus  enters  a 
human  individual  of  abnormal  humanity,  and  meets 

*  The  Scriptural  and  truly  scientific  idea  of  the  Word  involves 
something  deeper  than  the  mere  literal  conception  thereof.  The 
Personal  Word,  who  is  the  source  and  immaterial  substance  of 
the  written  and  spoken  Word,  cautioned  his  disciples  against  the 
danger  of  limiting  its  meaning  to  signs  expressed  by  characters 
or  to  sounds  articulated  by  human  breath.  "  The  words  that  I 
speak  unto  you,  they  are  spirit  and  they  are  life.'"  This  is  the 
great  Teacher's  warning  against  the  materialistic  or  wave-theory 
of  his  glorious  Gospel.  This  theory  largely  prevails  in  the  mod- 
ern theological  world.  Indeed,  no  other  theory  can  be  consist- 
ently held  or  possibly  maintained  without  the  adoption  of  the 
fundamental  principle  of  the  Substantial  Philosophy.  The  true 
syllogism  must  run  as  follows:  All  life  is  force;  all  force  is  sub- 
stance; Christ's  Word  is  life';  therefore  it  is  substantial  force  in 
his  body,  the  church.  The  proper  preaching  of  the  Word,  and 


296  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

with  such  reception  as  to  coalesce  with  the  essential 
elements  of  his  moral  and  rational  being,  what  is  the 
result  called? 

A.  The  Scriptures  of  God  and  true  science  unite  in 
terming  it  regeneration. 

Q.  38.  Then  regeneration  is  affected  by  the  force 
from  above? 

A.  It  is.  And  yet  the  force  from  above  could  not 
regenerate  a  stone,  a  plant  or  an  ox. 

Q.  39.     Why  not? 

A.  Because  these  orders  of  being  have  not  the  ability 
to.  receive  so  high  an  order  of  life  in  the  sense  that  man 
can  receive  it. 

Q.  40.     Why  have  they  not  such  ability? 

A.  As  seen  in  Chapter  I.,  man's  peculiar  and  intimate 
relation  to  God,  by  which  he  retains  within  him  the  God- 
consciousness,  consisted  in  his  having  the  Divine  image. 
The  Divine  image  in  man  is  an  element  of  God's  own 
substantial  being  which  was  never  communicated  to  any 
of  the  lower  orders  of  existence.  And  although  sin 
entered  and  marred  that  image,  it  was  not  destroyed. 

the  proper  administering  of  the  Sacraments  are  complementary 
means  through  which  the  life -force  of  Christ  goes  out  in  its  cor- 
relative forms  of  truth  and  grace.  This  truth  and  grace  are 
lodged  in  the  church,  the  embodiment  of  Christ's  kingdom  upon 
the  earth,  and  are  thus  objectively  at  hand  by  virtue  of  the 
Word  having  been  made  flesh  to  dwell  thus  among  us  (John  i. 
14)  by  his  perennial  presence.  The  popular  and  reigning  theory 
in  the  general  assemblies  and  literature  of  our  earnest  Protest- 
antism, as  to  the  essential  constitution  of  the  church,  is  as  far 
from  the  truth  as  the  wave-theory  of  sound.  The  theory,  if  al- 
lowed to  run  logically  out  to  its  own  conclusions,  would  empty 
the  veritable  body  of  Christ  of  its  objective  realities,  substantial 
force  and  historic  character,  and  resolve  it  into  a  mere  society  of 
Christians  huddled  together  for  mutual  advantage  and  protec- 
tion, and  held  together  like  a  heap  of  sand.  This  theory  cannot 
long  maintain  itself  before  the  rising  and  ruling  philosophy  of 
the  world. 


DEATH'S  ANTIDOTE.  297 

For  this  reason  man  is  not  unconditionally  lost.     He  is 
capable  of  being  made  over — regenerated'. 

Q.  41.  Does  not  abnormal  human  life  develop  under 
the  influence  of  the  gospel  into  normal  humanity,  or  may 
not  humanity  be  educated  up  into  Christianity? 

A.  No  more  than  the  most  precious  stone  can  rise  by 
the  power  of  the  lapidary  into  a  plant;  or  the  plant  by 
the  assistance  of  the  botanist  leap  the  impassable  chasm 
that  separates  it  from  the  animal  realm  of  existence. 

Q.  42.  Then  regeneration  is  something  more  than 
spontaneous  generation? 

A.  It  is  something  different.  Substantialisrn  disputes 
the  baseless  theory  advanced  by  modern  evolutionists  that 
higher  orders  of  being  are  spontaneously  generated  from 
the  protoplasm  of  the  lower;  and  in  applying  its  broad 
and  catholic  principles  to  Christianity  it  consistently  con- 
tinues to  maintain  that  any  such  spontaneous  generation 
is  equally  impossible  in  the  still  higher  realm  of  biological 
being.*  "  Except  a  man  be  born /row  ABOVE  he  cannot 
see  the  kingdom  of  God." — John  Hi.  3,  New  Ver. 

Q.  43.     Has  faith  nothing  to  do  with  regeneration? 

A.  Faith,  in  its  two -fold  stage  of  development,  is  both 
the  organ  through  which  the  possibility  of  the  n?w  birth 
is  actualized  and  a  fruit  of  such  birth  as  an  accomplished 
fact.  There  is  really  no  Christian  faith  in  a  man  until 
after  he  is  Christianized.  When  the  individual  is  made  a 
Christian,  faith  becomes  an  entitative  substance  of  his 
being.  It  is  objective  in  its  positive  existence,  and  a  cre- 
ation— not  out  of  nothing,  but  from  the  elements  already 

*  Much  of  our  theoretical,  orthodox  Christianity  is  nothing 
more  than  humanitarianism  at  best.  Notwithstanding  the  claim 
to  the  contrary,  many  of  our  pulpits  and  much  of  our  so-called 
Christian  literature  send  out  and  circulate  the  poisonous  doc- 
trine that  man  can  either  perfect  himself. in  his  present  sphere, 
or,  by  his  own  force,  transcend  his  present  bounds. 


298  THE   SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY, 

at  hand;  yet  not  from  these  in  the  sense  of  evolution,  as 
though  the  original  elements  had  power  to  transcend 
their  limited  sphere  and  spring  into  a  higher  order  of  ex- 
istence. Faith  is  an  entity  "  born  from  above,"  and  yet 
as  something  conceived  in  the  very  womb  of  human  per- 
sonality. It  is  not  something  manufactured  to  order  in 
heaven  and  sent  in  its  completeness  from  the  skies; 
neither  can  it  have  birth  in  the  animal  or  in  the  angelic 
constitution.  Humanity,  as  constituted  in  the  image  of 
God,  is  the  only  soil  receptive  of  such  heavenly  seed. 
This  mere  receptivity  is  too  generally  mistaken  for  faith 
itself.  Such  theology  is  exceedingly  superficial,  un- 
scriptural,  and  unphilosophical.  It  might  just  as  well 
call  the  Virgin  Mary's  receptivity  or  conceptivity  the 
veritable  Son  of  God.  There  is  no  Christian  faith  in  the 
human  heart  until  after  it  has  been  ••  overshadowed  by  the 
power  of  the  Highest, "and  quickened  by  the  life  of  the 
Highest,  Faith  is  then  developed  according  to  a  vital 
process  of  spiritual  gestation  and  growth.  Barring  the 
possibility  of  miscarriage,  it  passes  the  stages  of  its 
progress,  and  rises  gradually  into  its  higher  form  of  ex- 
istence, in  fulfillment  of  all  the  prophecies  in  the  lower 
orders  of  being,  and  in  a  growing  conformity  to  its  own 
heavenly  type.  That  type  is  Christ.  Such  conformity 
to  type  is  all  that  the  Church  on  earth  can  ever  have,  or 
know,  or  give  as  a  satisfactory  solution  of  the  great 
scriptural  echoes  of  predestination.  Away  with  mere  ab- 
stract divinity!  The  world  has  had  too  much  metaphys- 
ical theology.  God  "  hath  chosen  us  in  HIM:"  and  "  Ye 
are  complete  in  Him."  That  which  completes  itself  in 
him  starts  in  him.  He  is  the  beginning  and  the  end  of 
all  principles  and  processes  with  which  he  has  anything 
organically  to  do — "  the  author  and  finisher  of  our  faith." 
That  which  starts  in  him  partakes  of  his  nature — of  his 
substance.  That  which  starts  organically  in  him  and 
partakes  of  his  being  has  life,  even  as  he  has  life  in  him- 


DEATH'S  ANTIDOTE.  299 

self.  Life,  though  not  a  mere  force,  is  nevertheless  al- 
ways a  force.  When  this  life  becomes  faith,  faith  is  a 
force — the  mightiest  derivative  force  in  the  universe.  It 
is  distinct  from  Christ,  and  yet  as  inseparable  as  it  is  dis- 
tinct. The  just  live  by  faith,  because  faith-life  is  the 
Christ-life  of  all  whose  "  life  is  hid  with  Christ  in  God." 
That  faith  is  concretely  functional  we  readily  allow, 
but  that  it  is  a  mere  function,  or  faculty  of  something 
more  real  than  itself,  we  cannot  admit.  Even  Herbert 
Spencer  is  scientifically  orthodox  enough  to  say  that  "  we 
have  next  to  no  power  of  tracing  up  the  genesis  of  a 
function,  considered  purely  as  such."  Separately  con- 
sidered, there  is  no  such  function  in  existence,  and  con- 
sequently there  need  be  no  effort  made  to  trace  after  its 
origin.  Faith  has  no  being,  even  as  a  function,  except 
in  its  relation  to  the  organ  which  functionally  acts,  or 
rather  the  organ  through  which  life  acts  in  the  discharge 
of  its  functions.  The  organ  is  nothing  except  in  the  or- 
ganism of  which  it  is  an  organic  part,  just  as  the  organ- 
ism is  destitute  of  vitality  outside  of  the  kingdom,  and 
the  kingdom  is  nothing  without  the  real  presence  of  the 
king. 

The  "king  invisible"  never  asserts  his  power  in  either 
of  the  several  distinct  kingdoms  of  his  universal  empire, 
from  the  mineral  up  to  the  mediatorial,  without  being 
peculiarly  present  both  in  the  existence  of  its  elements 
and  in  the  operation  of  its  laws.  If  this  is  pantheism, 
the  Bible  is  a  pantheistic  book,  and  Christianity  a  pan- 
Christistic  religion.  But  it  is  not  pantheism.  There  is 
no  confounding  of  the  creator  with  the  creature.  Even 
the  penitent  thief,  upon  the  rack  of  torture,  had  sense 
enough  to  recognize  and  confess  this  general  philosophic 
principle  as  applied  to  Christianity.  In  fact,  that  recog- 
nition was  an  act  of  his  faith.  The  impression  made  by 
the  regicidal  tragedy  of  the  Cross  enabled  him  to  exercise 
his  incipient  faith  in  the  form  of  prayer — "When  thou 


300  THE  SUBSTANTIAL    PHILOSOPHY. 

comest  into  thy  kingdom."  This  is  no  exception  to  the 
general  law  of  the  empire.  The  Rock  of  Ages  never 
crystal] zed  an  amethyst  without  being  present  in  the 
lapidary  of  his  own  work;  the  Rose  of  Sharon  never 
caused  a  flower  to  bloom  until  he  first  came  in  the  king- 
dom to  which  the  flowers  belong;  and  the  Redeemer 
never  saved  a  single  son  of  exiled  Adam  except  as  he  ap- 
proached the  individual  in,  with,  and  through  his  re- 
medial kingdom. 

Such  salvation  is  possible  for  each  individual,  because 
God  has  already  so  approached  and  redeemed  the  race  in 
its  generic  sense.  The  ages  bore  testimony  to  the  stately 
stoppings  of  his  gradual  approach,  until  it  was  truthfully 
heralded  forth  that  "the  kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand." 
Thus  at  hand,  it  involved  peculiar  forces  and  func- 
tions of  its  own.  While  under  one  view  this  kingdom 
which  "came  down  from  God  out  of  heaven"  was 
foreign  to  that  of  humanity,  it  nevertheless,  conditioned 
itself  to  the  peculiar  constitution  and  wants  of  the  latter. 
Scarcely  had  it  appeared  above  the  sin-bedarkened  hori- 
zon of  the  race  until  the  challenge  of  its  authority  and 
the  saving  benefits  of  its  provisions  were  uttered  from 
the  throne  within:  "Repent,  believe;  for  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  is  at  hand."  This  announcement  virtually 
implied  that  it  was  the  approach  of  this  kingdom  which 
raised  the  possibility  into  the  power  of  faith,  by  laying 
hold  of  the  only  point  of  contact  in  man.  This  point  of 
contact  is  the  divine  image — defaced,  but  not  destroyed. 
This  involves  the  God-consciousness  as  a  surviving  ele- 
ment in  the  fallen  race,  and  always  essential  to  the  con- 
stitution of  humanity.  At  this  point,  in  the  very  center 
of  the  individual's  personality,  may  be  engrafted  "  the 
powers  of  the  world  to  come,"  enabling  "  the  blessed  and 
only  Potentate "  to  say  in  truth  to  the  individual  be- 
liever: "The  kingdom  of  God  is  within  you."  Thus 
engrafted,  the  work  of  Christian  growth  begins,  and  the 


DEATH'S  ANTIDOTE.  301 

process  of  individual  evolution  continues  in  accordance 
with  the  law  of  spiritual  embryology.  Thus,,  "  Christ 
dwells  in  the  heart  by  fa'th."  The  life  which  the  Chris- 
tian lives  is  "  by  the  faitli  of  the  Son  of  God."  Christ, 
his  kingdom  and  faith  are  inseparable,  and  yet  distinct, 
in  the  Christian.  He  spoke  both  of  his  kingdom  and  of 
faith  as  a  grain  of  mustard  seed.  We  see  no  escape  from 
such  conclusions  except  by  an  infidel  rejection  of  God's 
Word  and  an  unscientific  denial  of  the  resolvability, 
transmissibility,  and  conservability  of  force. 

Thus  faith,  whether  force,  faculty,  organ,  organism  in 
embryo,  or  all  together,  is  "the  gift  of  God/'  As  al- 
ready seen,  it  is  a  gift  inseparable,  yet  distinct,  from 
the  giver.  It  is  given  in  a  sense  somewhat  analo- 
gous to  that  in  which  the  sun  gives  light  and  vision. 
The  sun  not  only  calls  the  plant  into  individual  being 
in  the  vegetable  kingdom,  but  also  calls  forth  within 
it  the  faculty  through  which  it  receives  the  light.  The 
first  thing  that  light  finds  in  the  vegetable  seed  is 
capacity.  So  with  the  possibility  of  the  organ  of  vision 
in  the  animal  or  in  man.  The  eye  is  not  merely  met  by 
the  light,  it  is  elicited  before  there  is  any  real  organ  of 
vision.  The  truth  of  this  assertion  is  amply  demon- 
strated in  the  caves  of  the  earth,  where  perpetual  dark- 
ness reigns.  In  animals  long  deprived  of  light  there  is  a 
tendency  to  beget  a  progeny  without  eyes — or  if  eyes, 
without  vision.  So  in  the  higher  and  spiritual  order  of 
being.  Revelation  from  above  is  heavenly  force  coming 
down.  Finding  capacity  in  man,  its  first  creative  an- 
nouncement is  like  that  of  Ananias  to  Saul:  "Receive 
thy  sight."  Thus  faith  cometh  by  hearing,  and  yet  it  is 
not  faith  until  it  is  conceived  in  the  moral  protoplasm  of 
the  human  soul.  These  two  factors  must  be  held  in 
proper  relation  to  each  other,  in  order  to  a  proper  con- 
ception of  the  genesis  of  faith  as  a  substantial  and  entita- 
tive  force  in  the  Christian.  The  kingdom  from  above, 


y^f^B1^^^S^ 
ff  OF  THE  & 

f  MNiVERsrr 


302  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

replete  with  a  heavenly  purpose,  power,  and  glory, 
reaches  clown  into  the  one  immediately  beneath  it  in  the 
gradation  of  being,  "touches  with  its  mystery  of  life  the 
souls  of  men  "  "  dead  in  trespasses  and  in  sin,"  quickens 
them  into  a  higher  order  of  animated  existence,  bears 
them  across  the  otherwise  bridgeless  gulf  between  the 
mere  human  and  that  which  is  divine-human,  and 
endows  them  with  its  own  higher  possibilities  and 
powers. 

What  saith  the  Scriptures?  What  is  the  most  reason- 
able rendering  of  the  passages  in  which  the  term  faith 
occurs?  Limited  space  admits  of  inquiry  concerning  but 
a  few  texts.  Luke  xvii.  6:  ".Faith  as  a  grain  of  mus- 
tard seed."  The  reference  is  not  primarily  to  the  small- 
ness  of  the  seed,  but  rather  to  the  fact  that  it  is  the 
embryonic  embodiment  of  life — that  that  life  is  a  sub- 
stantial force,  the  product  of  a  kingdom  behind  it,  and 
the  possibility  of  an  individual  organism  before  it. 
Christ  was  too  much  of  a  philosopher  to  compare  faith 
to  a  grain  of  sand.  Gal.  v.  6:  "Faith  which  worketh  by 
love."  In  this  text  faith  cannot  mean  the  action  of  the 
intellect  of  the  individual;  neither  can  it  mean  the  mere 
action  of  the  "new  creature  "  formed  within  him.  Ac- 
tion is  not  predicable  of  mere  action.  Back  of  all  and 
in  all  there  is  something  more  than  action.  Faith  work- 
eth; therefore  faith  is  inseparably  distinct  from  the  work 
— it  is  an  entitative  actor.  2  Pet.  i.  5:  "Add  to  your 
faith  virtue,  knowledge,  temperance."  etc.  Here  is  a 
process  of  addition.  Not  by  outward  accretion,  or  ac- 
cession of  parts,  but  by  development.  The  seven  graces 
are  evolved  from  the  root  principle  of  faith — a  substan- 
tial entity.  1.  John  v.  4:  "  For  whatsoever  is  begotten 
of  God  overcometh  the  world,  and  this  is  the  victory 
that  hath  overcome  the  world,  even  our  faith."  Here  is 
something  procreated,  generated,  even  "our  faith."  It 
is  an  entity  because  it  is  begotten.  Who  will  dare  to 


DEATH'S  ANTIDOTE.  30P> 

step  forward  and  say  that  God  begets  nonentities?  It  is 
a  force  because  it  "  overcometh  "  some  other  force.  Does 
not  such  inspired  language  justify  us  in  the  assertion  that 
faith  is  the  mightiest  force  in  the  world,  since  it  hath 
overcome  (new  ver.)  the  world?  Is  there  any  room  left 
for  the  meager  diet  of  abstractions  so  generally  served  at 
the  crowded  table  of  unphilosophic  dogmatics?  Out 
upon  this  wrecched  heresy  in  theology!  It  corresponds 
with  the  untenable  tlreory  of  molecular  motion  in 
physics!  No  wonder  that  the  faith  which  is  so  unscien- 
tifically ignorant  of  its  original  moorings  and  entitative 
existence  is  often  found  creeping  into  its  own  circular 
syllogisms  without  any  comforting  contents!  This  is  at 
least  one  way  in  which  men  crawl  into  the  convolutions 
of  their  own  false  logic  to  indulge  in  delusive  dreams  of 
heaven. 

From  what  has  been  shown  in  some  of  the  foregoing 
paragraphs,  it  follows  in  the  way  of  most  logical  deduc- 
tion that  faith  as  a  force-entity  in  the  Christian  operates 
in  a  two-fold  activity.  It  clings  to  the  pure  powers  that 
begat  it  from  above,  and  conflicts  with  the  perverse 
powers  that  oppose  it  from  beneath.  The  scriptural 
terms  "  overcometh  "  and  "  victory  "  imply  opposition. 
These  terms  would  have  no  meaning  in  the  absence  of 
such  "principalities  and  powers/'  The  "victory"  of 
faith-force  implies  defeat  of  counter -force.  What  is  this 
counter-force?  Is  it  something  constitutional  and  nor- 
mal in  the  human  race,  or  is  it  a  foreign,  adventitious 
element  which  the  Scriptures  denominate  sin  ?  We 
affirm  the  latter.  A  failure  to  recognize  this  truth 
seems  to  us  the  weak  point  in  Prof.  Drummond's  great 
book  on  "Natural  Law  in  the  Spiritual  World."  At 
least  he  has  failed  to  emphasize  the  fundamental  fact  of 
the  world's  substantial  forces,  normal  and  abnormal;  and 
for  this  reason  the  treatise,  which  is  otherwise  a  valuable 
contribution  to  science,  is  not  worthy  to  be  compared 


•  THE   SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

with  the  "  Problem  of  Human  Life."  If  the  great  phi- 
losopher of  Edinburgh  has  apprehended  sin  as  a  force,  he 
has  at  least  failed  to  apprehend  force  as  a  substance.  To 
deny  the  existence  of  sin  as  of  such  character  in  the  or- 
ganism of  humanity,  is  to  resolve  the  whole  process  of 
human  redemption  into  a  sham-battle.  Perhaps  his  eyes 
were  blinded  by  Supralapsarian  theology,  held  as  a  mere 
system  of  metaphysical  abstractions. 

Q.  44.  How  does  regeneration  stand  related  to  the  for- 
giveness of  sins? 

A.  Forgiveness  follows  as  a  result  of  the  introduction 
into  man's  nature  of  that  which  brings  absolution  througli 
regeneration,  and  it  will  be  a  day  of  mutual  confirma- 
tion for  Kevelation  and  Science  when  they  can  express 
the  same  truth  in  the  same  language:  "  He  that  hath  the 
Son  hath  life,  and  there  is,  therefore,  no  condemnation 
to  them  that  are  :n  Christ  Jesus."  Life,  truth,  righteous- 
ness and  holiness  are  inseparable  in  the  constitution  of 
Christ's  person;  so  regeneration,  conversion,  justification 
and  sanctification  are  the  correlative  terms  expressive 
of  his  complementary  work  in,  with,  and  for  the  in- 
dividual. Christ's  truth,  righteousness  and  holiness 
ground  themselves  in  his  life;  so  does  conversion,  justifi- 
cation and  sanctification  follow  in  consequence  of  regen- 
eration. It  may  also  be  added  that  Christ's  life  regener- 
ates, his  truth  converts,  his  righteousness  justifies 
(procures  pardon),  and  his  holiness  sanctifies.  Let  the- 
ology be  studied  upon  this  line  of  investigation  and  a 
doctrinal  day,  brighter  than  the  sun  of  Austerlitz,  will 
soon  begin  to  dawn  upon  the  church.  The  old  theology 
concerning  the  forensic  theories  of  pardon,  as  well  as 
much  modern  mechanical  bosh,  proceeds  upon  the  suppo- 
sition that  the  central  element  of  the  atonement  was  law 
rather  than  life — that  God  needed  reconciliation  more 
than  man  needed  restoration,  and  that  God  was  more 
concerned  about  the  vindication  of  his  wounded  honor 


DEATH'S  ANTIDOTE.  305 

than  he  was  about  the  healing  of  the  wound  that  sin  had 
made  in  the  more  vital  parts  of  human  being.  The 
church  must  soon  change  the  emphasis  from  some  of  her 
theological  tenets  or  make  preparation  for  a  ridiculous 
jubilee  over  the  implied  fact  that  Jehovah  succeeded  in 
extricating  himself  from  the  danger  of  inconsistency. 
Let  the  trumpet  be  sounded  and  a  change  be  ordered  all 
along  the  line.  Let  the  question  "  How  can  God  be 
just?"  be  relegated  back  to  the  court  of  heaven,  and 
proper  prominence  be  given  to  the  more  soteriological 
question:  "How  can  man  be  made  every  whit  whole?" 
Thus  will  be  brought  into  proper  view  the  foundation 
upon  which  the  welcome  doctrine  of  Divine  forgiveness 
may  stand  in  its  legitimate  place.  But  still  it  may  be 
said  to  the  church's  honor  that  her  faith  has  always  been 
better  than  her  philosophy — her  creed  better  than  her 
ruling  theology.  The  articles  of  the  Apostle's  Creed  are 
arranged  in  accordance  with  the  natural  order  of  things: 
The  church,  life-communion  in  the  church,  and  the  for- 
giveness of  sins  in  virtue  of  what  is  communicated  with 
such  life.  Thus  the  Substantial  Philosophy  when  prop- 
erly applied  to  Christianity  is  beautifully  in  harmony 
with  the  creed  of  Christendom,  though  gloriously  at 
variance  with  much  of  its  philosophy  and  many  of  its 
theories. 

Q.  45.     In  regeneration,  what  is  born  again? 

A.  The  life-force  from  above,  when  all  the  condi- 
tions of  its  introduction  and  instatement  in  the  human 
individual  are  at  hand,  begins  its  work  in  the  vital 
center  of  his  being.  The  person  is  born  again,  and  yet 
in  such  sense  that  the  individual  or  person  continues 
identically  the  same.  Personality  has  its  high  rank  of 
being  in  the  union  of  reason  and  will.  These  are  there- 
fore seized  upon  in  the  very  ineipiency  of  the  new  birth 
by  the  life-force  which  produces  it.  From  this  personal 


306  THE   SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

center*  of  man's  individual  being  the  force  works  out  by 
process  through  the  entire  periphery  of  his  nature,  until 
he  is  "raised  up  at  the  last  day." 

Q.  46.     Is  regeneration  then  an  instantaneous  act? 

A.  Science  must  hold  that  regeneration  is  an  in- 
stantaneous beginning  of  the  workings  of  the  higher 
form  of  life-force  in  the  human  soul,  although  there  be 
a  historic  preparation  going  before  and  a  gradual  process 
following  after. 

Q.  47,     Then  what  is  sanctification? 

A.  Scientifically  considered,  sanctification  is  the  pro- 
cess cf  getting  well.  A  process  running  through  the 
entire  period  of  medication  and  spiritual  convalescence. 

Q.  48.     When  will  this  process  end? 

A.  In  its  proper  and  most  comprehensive  sense  it  will 
end  when  sin  has  been  fully  antidoted,  and  when  death 
is  consequently  swallowed  up  in  full  and  final  victory. 

Q.  49.     When  will  that  take  place? 

A.     This  question  will  be  answered  in  the  next  chap 
ter,  on  the  ressurection  of  the  dead. 

*  The  person  is  not  only  the  center  of  man  whose  radii  and 
periphery  are  all  the  activities  (entities)  of  body  and  soul,  but 
also  the  center  of  Nature.  .  .  .  What  Nature  contains  in  frag- 
ments is  united  in  the  person  of  man.  .  .  .  Our  personality  is 
complete  only  when  we  are  conscious  of  God  and  our  relation  to 
him,  and  when  we  suffer  God  to  speak  to  it  and  through  it. — 
Dr.  Fred.  A.  Rouch,  in  his  "  Psychology,"  p.  178. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

THE   R/ESUKRECTION   OF  THE   DEAD. 

QUESTION' 1,  Does  the  question  of  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead  come  in  any  sense  within  the  proper  province  of 
science? 

ANSWER.  It  does.  As  seen  in  Chapter  XL,  biological 
science  treats  of  being  in  the  domain  of  life.  If  now,  by 
the  exercise  of  some  force,  or  some  perverse  force-element 
antagonistic  to  life,  as  seen  in  Chapter  XII.,  living  beings 
are  overtaken  with  an  alleged  catastrophe,  seemingly  de- 
structive of  all  there  is  of  life  and  for  life,  science  is  in 
duty  bound  to  continue  its  work  to  the  full  extent  of  its 
ability  to  institute  and  complete  a  thorough  investigation 
of  the  case. 

Q.  2.  What,  then,  is  the  first  duty  of  science  in  its 
investigations  of  the  conflict  in  which  death  has  seem- 
ingly triumphed  over  life? 

A.  To  inquire  carefully  as  to  just  what  is  necessa- 
rily involved  in  the  idea  which  the  term  "  death "  is 
made  to  express. 

Q.  3.  What  has  already  been  shown  in  the  "  Problem 
of  Human  Life,"  and  in  this  book — a  formulation  of 
truths  based  thereupon — as  to  the  sense  in  which  alone 
death  is  predicable  of  any  form  of  being? 

A.  It  has  been  shown,  as  never  before,  from  the 
unique  standpoint  of  the  Substantial  Philosophy,  that 
there  is  no  death,  except  in  the  sense  of  change  from 


308  THE  SUBSTANTIAL    PHILOSOPHY. 

one  form  or  condition  of  existence  to  some  other  form  or 
state  of  being.* 

Q.  4.  What  has  the  Substantial  Philosophy,  as  formu- 
lated in  the  foregoing  chapters  of  this  book,  re-estab- 
lished upon  a  new  and  more  rational  basis? 

A.  The  indestructibility  of  all  matter,  and  the  con- 
servability  of  all  the  substantial  force-elements  of  the 
universe. 

Q.  5.     Can  no  kind  of  being  ever  be  annihilated? 

A.  Nothing  whatever,  of  a  substantial  and  entitative 
character,  whether  material  or  immaterial,  can  ever  go 
out  of,  or  be  forced  out  of  existence — it  can  only  be 
changed. 

Q.  6.  Are  these  changes  constantly  going  on  in 
Nature? 

A.  Indeed  they  are,  in  every  domain  thereof.  Chem- 
ical changes  are  common  and  constant  in  the  material 
world.  In  the  vegetable  and  animal  kingdoms,  disorgan- 
ization and  reorganization  complement  each  other.  In 
the  domain  of  physics  the  various  forms  of  Nature's 
forces  are  undergoing  an  endless  transformation,  and  yet 
never  change  as  to  the  primordial  substances  of  their 
being;  and  if  the  analogies  of  Nature  are  not  the  mon- 
strous utterances  of  a  false  prophet,  the  same  general 

*  With  the  physical  forces  of  Nature  demonstrated  to  be  sub- 
stantial entities,  as  already  done  in  this  series  of  articles,  thereby 
equally  demonstrating  the  substantive  nature  of  the  vital  and 
mental  powers  and  forces  of  all  living  and  conscious  beings, 
this  philosophy  at  once  spans  the  chasm  between  time  and  eter- 
nity, and  embraces  within  its  logical  grasp  the  substantial  here- 
after as  well  as  the  invisible  substantial  here  of  humanity,  and 
furnishes  a  reasonable  proof  of  a  conscious  and  personal  immor- 
tality for  the  human  race  when  this  purely  physical  and  tempo- 
rary existence  shall  have  passed  away.  The  mind  and  life  as 
substantial  forces  are  necessarily  indestructible,  on  the  basis  that 
no  substantial  thing  can  ever  be  annihilated  though  changed  in 
form  however  often,— Dr.  Hall,  in  Scientific  Arena, 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  DEAD.  300 

truth  will  apply  to  the  higher  problem  of  human  life, 
justifying  the  conclusions  ^that  what  we  call  the  death- 
catastrophe  in  man  is  only  a  further  change  of  his  state, 
and  that  in  such  a  changed  condition  he  remains  the 
same  as  to  the  essential  substance  of  his  being. 

Q.  7.  But  granting  for  truth  all  that  is  claimed  in 
the  foregoing  argument,  what  bearing  has  it  upon  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead? 

A.  In  so  far  that  the  dead,  notwithstanding  the  al- 
leged catastrophe,  are  neither  annihilated  nor  changed 
into  something  radically  different  from  what  they  were 
before  the  change,  but  that  they  are  in  a  state  of  exist- 
ence which  leaves  the  question  of  the  resurrection  within 
the  range  of  possibilities.  Christendom  is  at  present  in 
possession  of  no  theory  of  the  resurrection  in  harmony 
with  recent  discoveries  of  science.  Christians  are  sat- 
isfied that  God,  as  his  own  interpreter,  will,  in  his  own 
time,  make  the  mystery  plain;  and  that  the  resurrection 
of  the  dead  will  eventually  be  comprehended  by  reason, 
even  as  it  is  now  accepted  by  faith.  But  are  we  in  the 
meantime  to  shut  our  eyes  and  suck  our  thumbs  like 
babies  who  lull  themselves  to  sleep  on  imaginary  milk? 
True,  we  should  not  be  wise  above  what  is  written  in  the 
infallible  "Word  of  God.  Neither  should  we  be  content 
to  remain  ignorant  below  what  is  written  in  the  volume 
of  Nature,  which,  when  not  perverted  by  the  element  of 
sin,  is  equally  infallible  in  its  own  proper  sphere  of  in- 
struction. And,  further,  we  assert  that  there  is  no  pre- 
sumption in  an  ardent  desire  and  legitimate  effort  to  be 
wise  above  those  conclusions  drawn  from  the  unscientific 
and  contradictory  apprehensions  of  that  twofold  revela- 
tion of  harmonious  truth  which  is  every  where  given  under 
the  autograph  seal  of  the  great  Jehovah  himself,  and 
which  should  never  be  considered  as  correctly  understood 
until  each  part  is  seen  to  corroborate  the  other,  and  both 
are  glorified  together. 


310  THE  SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

Q.  8.  But  does  not  the  foregoing  prove  too  much,  viz. : 
that  the  dead  animals  are  also  in  a  state  of  vital  or  mental 
conservation  in  which  it  is  possible  for  them  to  survive 
the  shock  of  death  and  hear  the  beckoning  blasts  of  the 
resurrection  trumpet?* 


*  But  since  the  mind  and  life  as  substantial  forces  are  neces- 
sarily indestructible,  on  the  basis  that  no  substantial  thing  can 
ever  be  annihilated  though  changed  in  form  however  often,  the 
difficulty  arises,  does  not  this  great  principle  of  Substantialism 
prove  too  much  by  including  the  conscious  immortality  of  all 
lower  animals,  since  their  vital  and  mental  powers  and  forces 
are  as  really  substantial  entities  as  are  those  of  human  beings  ? 
We  admit  the  plausible  force  of  this  difficulty,  and  it  was 
among  the  earliest  that  attracted  our  attention  when  trying  to 
solve  the  *'  Problem  of  Human  Life"  here  and  hereafter. — See 
the  "  Problem  of  Human  Life,"  pp.  468-471.  And  although  the 
problem  cannot  be  settled  as  we  would  solve  a  problem  in 
mathematics  or  mechanics,  it  admits,  as  we  believe  and  will  en- 
deavor to  show,  of  a  sufficient  weight  of  evidence  to  form  a 
well-grounded  hope  for  the  personal  immortality  of  the  one 
class;  while  the  vital  and  mental  powers  of  the  other,  or  lower 
class,  are  only  conserved  as  crude  force  returned  to  the  primor- 
dial fountain  whence  all  vitality  and  mentality  originally  came. 

If  electricity,  magnetism,  sound,  heat,  light,  and  gravity  are 
really  substantial  or  entitative  forms  of  force,  and  not  mere 
modes  of  motion  of  material  particles,  then  these  various  forms 
of  force,  though  immaterial,  are  necessarily  as  indestructible  as 
is  gross  matter  itself;  and  instead  of  ceasing  to  exist  when  their 
manifestations  are  no  longer  observed,  they  are  either  converted 
into  some  other  form  or  forms  of  force,  or,  as  the  Substantial 
Philosophy  so  rationally  teaches,  they  subside  into  the  universal 
force-element  or  fountain  of  crude  force  from  whence  they  orig- 
inally came,  and  from  which  they  are  re-manifested  as  needed 
in  the  economy  of  Nature  and  through  the  various  means  aod 
processes  appointed  to  those  ends  in  the  wise  counsels  of  the 
creative  will. 

So,  also,  as  we  have  just  hinted,  must  it  be  with  all  the  lower 
orders  of  the  animal  kingdom.  Their  vital  and  mental  powers, 
being  also  as  truly  and  really  substantial  as  their  bodies,  are 
equally  indestructible;  but  as  these  powers  or  forces,  judging  by 


THE  RESURRECTION  OP  THE  DEAD.          31 1 

A.  A  proper  discrimination  between  the  personal  and 
impersonal  beings  in  creation  will  show  that  the  above 
objection  is  not  well  grounded.  It  is  man's  personality 
that  raises  him  above  the  general  law  of  subsidence  or 
returnability  to  the  primordial  fountain  of  all  force. 
Though  the  spirit  of  man  in  death  returns  to  God  who 
gave  it,  it  goes  there  as  its  own  personal  and  identical 
self.  It  can  go  in  no  other  form  or  character,  since  it  is 

reason,  have  served  the  extent  of  the  uses  and  purposes  of  their 
manifestation  here,  they,  too,  must  subside,  at  the  dissolution  of 
such  animals,  into  that  compartment  of  the  force-fountain  of 
Nature  suited  to  this  department  of  the  force-element  from 
which  the  vital  and  mental  powers  of  all  living  creatures  must 
originally  have  come.  This  special  compartment  of  the  force- 
element  of  Nature,  where  vitality  and  mentality  are  conserved, 
so  to  speak,  is  especially  correlated  with  the  personal  God  of  the 
universe  as  to  his  vital  and  mental  powers,  just  as  the  physical 
force-element,  before  referred  to,  is  correlated  with  God's  phys~ 
ical  laws  and  powers  by  which  the  corporeal  operations  of  the 
universe  are  carried  on  through  the  variously  manifested  forms 
of  force  as  they  emanate  from  this  physical  fountain. 

But  according  to  the  reasonable  view  which  Substantialism 
takes,  and  which  is  supported  by  other  rational  considerations, 
the  vital  and  mental  powers  of  man,  as  the  culminating  and 
crowning  work  of  the  Almighty,  and  like  unto  the  personality 
of  God  himself  in  every  conceivable  way,  only  on  a  finite 
plane,  must  have  been  designed  and  originally  destined  for  a 
personal  and  conscious  existence  in  a  future  life  analogous  to 
that  which  God  himself  must  possess  and  enjoy  as  surely  as  he 
exists  at  all.  The  vital  and  mental  faculties  and  endowments 
of  man — this  culminating  achievement  of  infinite  wisdom  and 
power — with  their  innate  self-consciousness  and  self -contempla- 
tion, and  with  their  limitless  capability  for  eternal  advance 
ment,  would  seem  to  prove  an  infinite  absurdity  in  their  ve-  / 
creation  if  they,  too,  were  destined  for  the  utter  loss  of  per- 
sonal consciousness  and  identity  as  soon  as  the  body  dies,  and, 
like  the  no  longer  valuable  or  available  powers  of  the  beast,  to 
be  consigned  to  the  unconscious  and  impersonal  vital  and 
mental  force-fountain  from  whence-  they  came. — Dr.  Hall,  in 
the  Scientific  Arena,  Vol.  I.,  p.  49. 


312  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

indelibly  impressed  with  the  image  of  the  Infinite 
Person.* 

Q.  9.  What  then  have  we  a  right  to  expect  from 
science  touching  the  resurrection  of  the  personal  dead? 

A.  We  have  a  right  to  expect  science  to  show  whether 
they  are  in  a  conserved  condition  in  which  they  may  be 
reached,  and  from  which  they  may  be  raised,  provided 
there  be  a  resurrection  power  to  reach  and  raise  them. 

Q.  10.  Has  science  responded  to  this  rational  expecta- 
tion on  our  part? 

A.  The  Substantial  Philosophy  with  its  recently  dis- 
covered facts,  and  its  rational  view  of  the  substantiality 

*  The  very  strongest,  however,  of  all  scientific  and  philosoph- 
ical arguments  by  which  to  prove  the  personal  and  conscious 
existence  of  man  in  another  life  is — first,  the  scientific  and 
philosophical  demonstration  that  God  himself  must  and  does 
exist  as  the  personal,  intelligent  creator  and  organizer  of  this 
universe,  as  proved  by  the  design,  artistic  beauty,  and  order 
everywhere  manifested  in  Nature,  from  the  whirling  clockwork 
of  the  celestial  spheres  to  the  painted  marvels  of  a  humming- 
bird's crest,  even  down  to  the  artistic  and  intelligent  taste  dis- 
played in  the  exquisite  lines  and  colors  of  the  microscopic  shells 
of  ocean  found  in  the  rayless  depths  of  her  darkest  caverns. 

We  speak  of  God's  personality,  since  it  is  impossible  to  con- 
ceive of  any  intelligence  of  the  highest  order  only  as  we  make 
the  mental  comparison  wi^h.  our  own  conscious  powers  and 
rational  personality.  We  can  imagine  such  personal  being  to 
be  higher  than  ourselves — even  to  be  an  infinitely  intelligent 
and  powerful  being — but  we  can  never  conceive  of  such  sur- 
passing intelligence,  power,  and  artistic  skill  to  be  less  than 
ourselves,  or  less  than  a  personality.  The  material  body  of 
man  achieves  nothing,  even  in  the  present  gross  state  of 
being,  only  as  the  physical  instrument  through  which  the 
immaterial  entity  acts  and  which  dwells  temporarily  within 
and  manipulates  such  body.  We  are  but  lifeless,  inert  mat- 
ter as  soon  as  that  immaterial  entity  has  departed  at  death 
Hence  the  immaterial  entity  within  us  is  the  real  man  which  is 
to  endure. 

As  sure,  then,  as  a  personal  God  exists  independently  of  ma- 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  DEAD.  313 

and  consequent  conservability  of  all  forces,  has  demon- 
strated from  all  the  known  analogies  and  prophecies  of 
Nature  that  the  personal  dead  are  not  dead  in  a  sense 
that  would  render  a  state  of  conscious  existence  impos- 
sible, or  their  resurrection  therefrom  improbable.  Either 
this  conclusion  is  true  or  the  prophets  of  Nature  are  mis- 
erable liars,  every  one  of  them. 

Q.  11.  Well,  what  do  the  lower  prophetic  forces  of 
Nature  say? 

A.  They  show  the  continuity  of  Law,  from  lower  to 
higher,  through  all  the  graduated  realms  of  being,  and 
place  the  burden  of  disproving  the  truth  of  their  prophecy 

terial  form  and  conditions,  so  surely  may  every  thoughtful  and 
rational  human  personality  rest  in  confidence,  with  hope  scien- 
tifically and  philosophicallj7  grounded  in  the  nature  and  fitness 
of  things,  that  he,  too,  has  a  personality  not  dependent  on  this 
corporeal  frame  except  for  a  temporary  schooling  through  which 
the  inner  man  is  passing  and  preparing,  like  the  butterfly  during 
its  chrysalis  state,  for  the  higher  development  when  it  shall  be 
released  from  crude  dross  to  mount  on  gilded  wings. 

This  very  fact  of  a  rational  personality  within  us  says  in  un- 
mistakable language  to  every  man:  If  God  lives  and  can  think 
and  plan  and  work  without  a  material  organization,  then  I  can 
live  also,  and  think  and  plan  and  work  without  a  material  body 
as  an  instrumentality.  For  why  should  an  infinite  personal  God 
have  made  this  immaterial,  personal  being  within  the  present 
gross  structure  of  flesh  and  bones  with  aspirations  and  capabili- 
ties for  infinite  duration  and  enjoyment,  except  to  live  substan- 
tially as  God  himself  lives,  unless  he  originally  intended  to  mock 
his  crowning  work  with  conceptions  of  possibilities  never  to  be 
realized,  and  with  longing  aspirations  for  enjoyment  which 
\vere  never  to  be  gratified?  We  totally  fail  to  conceive  the  pos- 
sibility of  an  infinite  personality  working  out  such  a  scheme  as 
this  universe  filled  with  countless  millions  of  intelligent  person- 
alities like  unto  himself,  except  in  degree,  and  with  the  cer- 
tainty that  these  crowning  triumphs  of  infinite  skill,  so  suitable 
for  his  own  intellectual  associates  throughout  eternity,  are 
doomed  to  annihilation  after  this  brief  and  often  miserable  ex- 
istence on  earth.— Dr.  Hall,  Arena,Vo\.  L,  p.  50. 


314  THE   SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

upon  those  who,  in  the  face  of  all  analogy  and  law,  affirm 
that  death  ends  all  that  there  is  of  man  and  for  man. 

Q.  12.  Do  these  prophecies  of  Nature  foreshadow  the 
resurrection  of  the  personal  dead? 

A.  If  that  is  not  their  prophecy,  they  have  no  obvious 
mission  in  the  universe  of  God.  Normal  solids  after 
being  transformed  into  gases  or  fluids  are  brought  lack 
again  to  normal  matter.  Electric  force  is  changed  into 
thermal  electricity  and  heat,  and  then  changed  back  to 
lightning,  which  climbs  the  stairway  of  the  atmosphere 
and  rides  in  the  chariots  of  the  clouds.  So  in  the  mai'- 
velous  metamorphoses  of  the  insect.  Who  will  say  that 
even  the  same  portion  of  the  vital  force  in  the  insect  does 
not  pass  from  one  form  to  another,  and  if  so,  why  not 
back  again,  and  up  until  the  arelia  becomes  the  gay  and 
festive  butterfly,  whose  heaven  is  sunshine  and  whose  glory 
it  is  to  weigh  itself  upon  the  flower. 

Q.  13.  But  is  not  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  ex- 
clusively a  doctrine  of  Eevelation  and  a  matter  of  faith? 

A.  It  is  indeed  a  doctrine  of  Revelation  and  a  matter 
for  faith  to  embrace,  but  it  is  not  exclusively  from  Reve- 
lation or  for  faith.  Nature  also  contains  a  revelation, 
and  science  and  reason  have  a  work  to  do  in  grasping  the 
mystery.  It  is  the  duty  of  Christian  science  to  receive 
all  revelations  and  utilize  all  the  light  that  shines  into 
the  compass  of  her  grasp.  Until  recently  science  was 
not  prepared  for  anything  that  the  higher  Revelation  had 
to  say  upon  the  subject. 

Q.  14.  What  do  the  Scriptures  of  revealed  truth  say 
concerning  the  death  catastrophe  in  the  history  of  man? 

A.     The  texts  are  plain  and  numerous:  "All  the  days 
of  my  appointed  time  will  I  wait  till  my  change  come."- 
Job  xiv.  14.     "  We   shall  all  be  changed." — 1  Cor.  xv. 
51.     "Who  shall  change  our  vile  bodies?" — Phil.  iii.  21. 
Other  passages  might  be  quoted  recognizing  the  presence 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  DEAD.  315 

of  the  element  of  sin  in  humanity,  and  giving  the  change 
a  sombrous  shade.  In  all  of  them,  however,  there  is  a 
showing  of  the  original  purpose  of  God  that  man  should 
pass  by  transition  from  the  present  to  another  realm  of 
human  existence. 

Q.  15.  What  is  the  state  of  man  immediately  after 
the  dissolution  or  change? 

A.  The  Scriptures  call  it  Sheol  or  Hades,  and  science 
accepts  the  term  as  fairly  expressive  of  the  general  con- 
dition of  the  personal  dead. 

Q.  16.  Would  Hades  have  been  a  state  in  the  history 
of  humanity  if  the  possibility  of  sin  had  not  been  ac- 
tuatized,  thus  changing  the  constitutionally  required 
transition  of  man  into  the  consequent  sad  and  sombrous 
form  of  death? 

A.  It  wonld  not.  Death  rode  in  upon  the  pale  horse 
and  Hades  followed  with  him. — Eev.  vi.  8. 

Q.  17.     What  does  Science  know  about  Hades? 

A.  As  yet,  Science  knows  only  in  part.  Even  the 
Scriptures  are  a  sealed  book,  except  so  far  as  its  meaning 
has  been  unlocked  by  him  who  holds  the  keys  of  Death 
and  Hades.  Science  alone  with  all  the  possibilities  of 
its  progress,  can  never  open  the  apocalyptic  book  of  seven 
seals,  and  bring  to  light  the  hidden  contents  of  the  inter- 
mediate state.  This  power  is  vested  in  him  who  liveth 
and  was  dead.  The  Lion  of  the  tribe  of  Judah  prevails 
to  open  the  book;  and  true  science  joins  the  four-and- 
twenty  Elders  as  they  bow  before  the  Lamb  to  sing  the 
"new  song'':  "  Thou  art  worthy  to  take  the  book,  and 
to  open  the  seals  thereof:  for  tJwu  ivast  slain." — Rev.  v. 
9.  Christ's  person  is  the  key  to  the  enigma  of  the  uni- 
verse, and  his  death  the  solution  of  all  the  problems 
within  the  veil.  The  entrance  of  sin  into  the  world, 
and  the  entailment  of  its  mortuary  consequences  upon 


316  THE  SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

the  world,  made  it  necessary  for  Christ  to  pass,  in  a  real 
historical  way,  under  the  dominion  of  death  in  order  to 
unseal  that  great  book  of  futurity  whose  most  interest- 
ing contents  are  to  be  found  immediately  over  the  border 
of  this  present  life. 

Q.  18.     Did  Christ  really  enter  Hades? 

A.  lie  did;  and  none  deny  it  except  such  as  are 
"  fools  and  slow  of  heart  to  believe  all  that  the  prophets 
had  spoken  concerning  him,"  and  all  that  was  of  neces- 
sity included  in  his  remedial  person  and  work,  from  his 
conception  by  the  Virgin  to  his  return  through  the  ever- 
lasting doors  to  glory.  This  view  is  taken  from  the  truly 
Scriptural  and  scientific  standpoint  of  organic  redemption. 
It  centers  in,  and  flows  forward  with,  the  entire  history 
of  the  Christ,  on  a  line  parallel  with  the  forces  at  work 
in  the  history  of  abnormal  humanity,  until  both  powers 
meet  in  the  realm  of  death,  where  death  is  swallowed  up 
victoriously.  Otherwise  there  would  have  been  no  "path 
of  life"  leading  to  "fullness  of  joy":  neither  could  our 
God  have  "  gone  up  with  a  shout/'  The  Bible  is  full  of 
this  Christocentric  theology.  The  logic  of  any  opposite 
theory  holds  its  premises  and  conclusions  within  the  me- 
chanical compass  of  dry  abstractions.  However  plausible 
it  may  appear,  its  syllogisms  are  full  of  fallacy,  and  its 
pious  platitudes  full  of  emptiness.  Divine  consistency  is 
not  the  key  to  the  atonement.  Neither  does  God  save 
the  world  for  the  sake  of  the  mere  agony  of  his  suffering 
Son.  His  death  involves  more  than  the  tragedy  of  'the 
Cross.  Golgotha  was  the  gate-way  to  the  Satanic  citadel 
beyond.  The  last  scene  in  the  dark  drama  was  executed 
behind  the  sombrous  curtain.  Christ's  heel  was  bruised 
on  Calvary,  but  the  serpent's  head  was  not  effectually 
crushed  until  the  promised  "seed"  had  passed  "from 
Edom,  with  dyed  garments  from  Bozrah,"  to  invade  the 
sepent's  headquarters.  Thus  did  he  wrest  "the  keys  of 
death  and  hell "  from  him  who  had  the  power  of  death 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  DEAD.  317 

(Heb.  ii.  14.).  Thus,  too,  was  the  Gospel  preached  to 
them  that  are  dead,  making  it  possible  for  all  the  un- 
doomed  "spirits  in  prison  "  to  "  pass  the  crystal  ports 
of  light,  and  dwell  in  endless  bliss." 

This  is  not  "another  Gospel,"  but  the  faith  delivered 
already  to  Old  Testament  saints.  The  twilight  prophecy 
of  such  a  coming  Conqueror  tinged  the  horizon  of  the 
patriarchal  age.  Abraham  foresaw  the  day  of  Messianic 
triumph,  and  was  glad.  David  embraced  the  primitive 
promise,  and  expressed  his  hope  of  deliverance  from  the 
power  of  death  (Ps.  xvi.).  Peter  was  able,  under  the 
baptism  of  Pentacost,  to  draw  more  meaning  from  Da- 
vid's language  than  what  was  clear  and  distinct  in  the 
inspired  fnith  of  the  Psalmist  at  the  time  of  its  poetic 
utterance.  Neither  did  St.  Peter  embrace  this  great 
truth  at  once  in  all  its  plenary  significance.  He  contin- 
ued to  advance 'beyond  himself,  or,  rather,  was  carried 
forward  by  the  objective  power  of  the  concrete  truth, 
until  his  higher  inspiration  and  his  consequent  deeper 
penetration  enabled  him  to  see  David's  Lord  and  Son  in- 
vade the  mystic  realm  of  mortality  and  preach  deliverance 
to  the  captives  (1  Peter  iii.  19). 

Thus  did  the  concrete  and  objective  Gospel  start  with 
the  development  of  the  race,  and  move  forward  in  the 
central  channel  of  human  history.  The  panorama  of  its 
successive  and  inseparable  scenes  passes  continually  before 
the  restless  audience  of  fallen  humanity,  communicating 
to  each  obedient  individual  the  substance  of  a  higher  life 
and  consequent  faith,  through  which  its  saving  benefits 
may  be  apprehended,  its  proportions  surveyed,  its  beauties 
admired,  and  the  personal  Fountain  of  its  excellencies 
adored.  Such  an  exhibition  leaves  neither  room  nor 
relish  for  the  unsavory  hash  of  disjointed  abstractions. 
Both  science  and  faith  require  "that  which  every  joint 
supplieth"  in  an  organic  way.  It  seeks  a  comprehensive 
view  of  all  the  sections  in  the  past,  present,  and  future  of 


318  THE    SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

one  grand,  progressive  movement  of  Messianic  life- force, 
until,  before  its  raptured  vision,  "hell  shall  ope  its  dol- 
orous portals  to  the  peering  day,"  and  the  ransomed 
(l spirits  in  prison"  march  forth  to  swell  the  old  tri- 
umphal shout  of  prophecy:  "Lift  up  your  heads,  ye 
gates:  and  be  ye  lifted  up,  ye  everlasting  doors,  and  the 
King  of  Glory  shall  come  in." 

What  a  solemn,  sacred  enigma  confronts  us  in  the 
"three  days"  of  transition  from  the  cross  to  the  Re- 
deemer's resurrection!  Christ  was  really  dead — his  soul 
was  separated  from  his  body.  This  state  of  separation 
was  his  intermediate  state.  The  "  corn  of  wheat  "  had 
fallen  into  the  ground  that  "  the  law  of  the  spirit  of  life 
in  Christ  Jesus  "  might  germinate  the  promised  "  seed  " 
into  a  glorified  humanity,  "free  from  the  law  of  sin  and 
death."  This  involved  the  conflict  with  principalities 
and  powers.  What  a  significant  and  far-reaching  victory! 
A  dead  Christ  had  more  commanding  influence  over  the 
elements  of  his  abode  than  had  a  living  Jonah  when  he 
"cried  out  of  the  belly  of  hell."  Jonah  prayed;  Jesus 
preached.  His  preaching  was  not  so  much  a  proclama- 
tion of  a  power  beyond  himself  as  a  demonstration  of  the 
power  he  had  in  himself — "  the  Lord,  strong  and 
mighty  in  battle."  The  sermon  in  the  sanctuary  of 
Hades,  on  that  last  significant  Sabbath  in  the  calendar  of 
Judaism,  was  nothing  less  than  the  power  of  his  personal 
presence  in  the  intermediate  state.  Its  eloquence  was 
"  in  the  demonstration  of  the  Spirit,"  and  told  power- 
fully in  breaking  the  bands  of  captivity  for  the  pious 
dead.  Neither  were  its  effects  confined  to  the  abode  of 
spirits:  "  The  graves  were  opened,  and  many  of  the 
bodies  of  the  saints  which  slept  arose,  and  came  out  of 
the  graves  after  his  resurrection  "  (Matt,  xxvii.  3).  This 
was  a  result  of  the  descent  into  Hades.  It  reveals  the 
law,  and  points  to  the  fact  of  a  general  resurrection. 

Q.  19.     Then  Hades  is  not  a  state  of  torment? 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  DEAD.  319 

A.  It  is  not  necessarily  such.  Corresponding  with 
the  rise  and  progress  of  Substantialism  there  has  been  an 
advance  in  the  way  of  sound  theological  and  Christolog- 
ical  thought.  Hades  has  been  too  commonly  identified 
with  perdition,  purgatory  or  the  grave.  The  question  of 
the  peculiar  condition  or  state  of  human  beings  conse- 
quent upon  the  separation  of  soul  and  body  was  too  gen- 
erally either  confounded  with  that  of  the  place  or  locality 
of  the  departed,  or  submerged  into  the  very  different 
question  of  rewards  and  punishment*,  according  to  the 
moral  characters,  respectively,  of  such  departed.  But  a 
now  interest  has  been  awakened  in  this  subject,  and  a 
new  direction  taken  by  the  inquiries  thus  stimulated. 
Bright  theologians  throughout  the  world  are  alive  to  the 
important  movement.  New  England  theology  no  longer 
elevates  the  external  organ  of  its  sensitive  olfactories  at 
the  mere  mention  of  the  word  which  formerly  seemed  to 
savor  more  of  sulphur  than  divinity. 

Indeed  the  way  is  now  thronged  with  pious  pilgrims 
and  scientific  adventurers,  who  wish  to  explore  the  val- 
ley which  intermediates  between  death  and  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  body.  Believing  that  the  soul  is  an  organized 
entity,  substantial  in  the  essence  of  its  being,  arid  inde- 
pendent of  this  tabernacle,  we  join  the  eager  throng,  and 
look  with  pleasure  upon  the  land  of  Beulah,  where, 
amidst  the  flowers  and  fruits  of  Paradise,  our  sainted 
friends  have  pitched  their  hadean  tents,  and  now  wait  in 
hope  for  that  greater  "glory  which  shall  be  revealed  in 
us "  all,  when,  ' '  in  the  resurrection  at  the  last  day/' 
'•"  Christ  shall  change  these  vile  bodies,  and  make  them 
like  unto  His  glorified  body,  according  to  the  working 
whereby  He  is  able  to  subdue  all  things  unto  Himself." 

Q.  20.  Was  Christ's  resurrection  the  mere  effect  or 
fruit  of  what  went  before  in  his  personal  conflict  with 
antagonistic  forces,  whereby  he  in  his  person  and  passion 
neutralized  the  force  of  sin  and  death  in  humanity,  or 


320  THE  SUBSTANTIAL    PHILOSOPHY. 

was  it  also  the  evidence  that  he  in  bis  resurrection  was 
the  fruitful  source  of  resurrection  force  for  others? 

A.  Christ,  as  the  generic  man,  and  in  his  organic  re- 
lation to  the  whole  of  the  race,  was,  in  the  same  generic 
and  organic  sense,  the  fountain  and  "  forerunner  "  of  all 
redeemed  humanity. 

Q.  21.  Did  Christ  in  his  resurrection  return  to  the 
same  order  or  condition  of  human  life  which  he  had 
passed  out  of  when  he  committed  his  spirit  into  the 
hands  of  his  Father? 

A.  lie  did  not.  The  resurrection  of  Christ  was  no 
reinstatement  into  his  former  realm  of  existence.  It 
was  a  transition  to  something  beyond — an  entrance  into 
a  higher  realm  of  being,  according  to  what  was  origi- 
nally made  possible  in  the  constitution  of  human  nature, 
and  which,  notwithstanding  the  actualization  of  sin,  was 
continued  possible,  yet  not  without  just  such  an  antidote 
as  that  which  was  brought  to  its  rescue  and  deliverance 
in  the  person  and  work  of  the  Second  Adam,  who  was 
also  "the  Lord  from  Heaven  "  and  ''  quickening  spirit." 
Under  this  view  of  Christ's  mission  "into  the  lower 
parts  of  the  earth,"  his  resurrection  appears  as  the  fruit 
rather  than  the  achievement  of  his  victory.  When  Jesus 
cried  with  a  loud  voice  it  indicated  "  the  greatness  of  his 
strength."  In  that  strength  he  entered  the  realm,  ex- 
tracted the  sting,  and  exhausted  the  power  of  death. 
Having  thus  "  abolished  death,"  he  reached  that  turning- 
point  in  his  eventful  history  when  "  death  had  no  more 
dominion  over  him."  Having  captured  captivity,  he  lead 
it  captive.  Having  spoiled  principalities  and  powers,  he 
made  a  show  of  them  openly"  (Col.  2,  xv).  Having 
been  confined  as  a  willing  captive  in  the  city  of  the  dead, 
he  arose  in  the  midnight  hour  of  human  history,  and, 
with  more  than  Samsoman  might,  plucked  up  the  pillars 
and  carried  away  the  gates  of  the  hadean  metropolis. 
No  wonder  that  "our  God  has  gone  up  with  a  shout!" 


THE  RESURRECTION   OF  THE  DEAD.  321 

No  wonder  that  the  apostles  preached  Jesus  and  the  res- 
urrection with  such  enthusiastic  emphasis!  "It  is  Christ 
that  died;  yea,  rather,  is  risen  again." 

Q.  22.  Was  his  resurrection  the  culminating  point  of 
all  possible  progress — the  end  of  all  transition  in  the 
history  of  the  Redeemer? 

A.  The  resurrection  of  Christ  was  indeed  a  cardinal 
period  in  his  history,  but  it  was  not  the  final  period  to  all 
that  his  full  transition  from  the  earthly  to  the  heavenly 
state  involved. 

Q.  23.  Did  he  leave  his  resurrection  body  behind  him, 
and  take  on  a  new  body  during  the  forty  days  of  his  con- 
tinued sojourn  upon  the  earth  or  at  the  time  of  his  ascen- 
sion into  heaven?* 

A.  He  did  not.  His  resurrection  body  doubtless  un- 
derwent further  change,  according  to  the  laws  of  the 
higher  realm  upon  which  he  had  entered,  and  to  whose  re- 
quirements and  environments  it  was  gradually  adjusting 
itself  according  to  all  that  is  known  of  the  law  of  growth 
and  development;  but  it  was  the  same  body  still,  even  as 
the  risen  Christ  remained  the  same  identical  blessed 
Jesus  who  had  come  forth  from  the  state  of  the  dead, 
and  who  with  triumph  passed  within  the  veil  to  appear 
in  the  presence  of  God  for  us. 

Q.  554.  But  what  has  all  this  to  do  with  the  resurrec- 
tion of  human  individuals? 

A.  Very  much  indeed.  If  humanity  were  made  up, 
in  a  mechanical  way,  of  a  mere  aggregation  of  separate 
and  distinct  beings,  it  would  be  otherwise.  But  human- 
ity in  the  concrete  is  an  organism,  and  as  seen  in  Chap. 

*  We  are  exceedingly  sorry  not  to  find  that  vigorous  thinker, 
Christian  scholar,  earnest  preacher  and  pious  man— Bishop 
Randolph  Foster,  with  us,  in  this,  the  very  heart  of  all  New 
Testament  theology.  In  his  excellent  book,  "  Beyond  the 
Grave,"  p.  161,  he  takes  the  opposite  view. 


322  THE   SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

XII.,  that  which  affects  the  head  affects  the  whole,  and 
that  which  affects  the  whole  affects  all  the  parts. 

Q.  25.  Will  all  human  individuals  be  raised  from  the 
dead  in  virtue  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ? 

A.  They  will;  because  Christ's  risen  humanity  stands 
organically  related  to  all  the  members  of  the  human 
race. 

Q.  26.  Does  it  not  then  follow  that  all  will  have  part 
in  the  healing  benefits  of  his  life  and  the  glorious  fruits 
of  his  resurrection? 

A.  It  does  not  so  follow,  because  while  some  have 
been  made  to  partake  of  his  life  as  an  antidote  for  sin", 
others  who  will  have  rejected  the  antidote,  or  who  did 
not  have  the  disposition  to  receive  it,  will  still  be  found 
poisoned  and  diseased  with  that  moral  malady  ;  and, 
therefore,  while  between  themselves  and  Christ  there  is 
a  humanity  in  common,  there  will  be  some  elements 
which  they  will  be  found  not  to  possess  in  common  with 
the  great  personal  magnet  of  the  resurrection  morn — 
elements  essential  to  a  resurrection  unto  moral  health, 
consequent  happiness  and  eternal  glory.  Christ  as 
the  risen,  ascended  and  glorified  head  of  humanity  v/ill, 
by  some  action  of  resurrection-force  going  out  from 
his  person,  and  for  some  purpose,  draw  all  men  unto 
himself.  His  relation  to  those  who  shall  have  partaken 
of  his  life  as  an  antidote  for  sin  and  death,  and  in 
whom  it  shall  have  operated  as  a  healing  force,  will  be 
one  of  positive  attraction.  To  such  as  will  not  have  been 
benefited  by  this  counteractant  life-force  of  Immanuel, 
and  who  are  found  in  Hades  as  continued  and  conse- 
quently continuous  sinners,  will  be  resurrected  to  a  con- 
tinued state  of  self-condemnation  under  the  continued 
force  of  death.  As  seen  in  Chapter  V.,  the  higher  affini- 
ties found  between  life-forces  and  the  attraction  conse- 
quent thereupon  involve  the  possibility  of  repulsion. 
This  possibility  of  repulsion  will  reach  its  ultimate 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  DEAD.  323 

actualization  in  the  peculiar  character  of  the  resurrection 
and  rejection  of  the  wicked.  The  Son  of  Man,  by  \irtue 
of  the  common  affinity  between  himself  and  all  members 
of  the  race,  will  gather  "all  nations"  before  his  Judgment 
Seat,  and  by  the  force  of  repulsion  will  cause  the  wicked 
to  "depart  from"  him. 

Q.  27.  Will  there,  then,  be  no  hope  for  those  who  are 
thus  repelled  by  and  from  the  Fountain  of  all  life,  hu- 
manity, holiness  and  happiness? 

A.  Neither  Science  nor  Eevelation  gives  any  ground 
for  a  reasonable  hope;  and  if  some  unknown  remedy 
should  yet  be  provided  and  offered,  it  would  not,  there- 
fore, necessarily  follow  that  such  individuals  would  em- 
brace its  remedial  benefits  after  having  incorrigibly  neg- 
lected the  first  great  offer  of  salvation. 

Q.  28.  Will  there,  then,  be  two  resurrections  of  the 
dead? 

A.  Revelation  so  teaches,  even  as  Science  foreshadows 
the  same  in  the  different  movements  produced  upon  dif- 
ferent substances  in  different  minerals  by  magnetic  at- 
traction and  repulsion. 

Q.  29.     "Who  shall  have  part  in  the  first  resurrection? 

A.  Blessed  and  holy  is  he  that  hath  part  in  the  first 
resurrection.  Such  as  those  in  whom  sin  has  been  anti- 
doted  in  this  present  state  of  human  life  and  who  are 
consequently  found  in  Hades  in  a  morally  convalescent 
state. 

Q.  30.  And  they  will  be  raised  to  a  higher  state  of 
blessedness  by  virtue  of  their  normal  relation  to  him  who 
is  the  first  begotten  from  the  dead? 

A.  Just  so.  The  Apostle  Paul  had  no  other  theory 
of  the  first  resurrection,  except  that  which  held  the  risen 
Christ  to  be  the  magnet  of  redeemed  humanity.  How 
otherwise  could  his  inspired  vision  have  seen  the  dead 


324  THE   SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

in  Christ  rise  first  to  meet  their  descending  Lord  in  the 
air?  What  but  the  substantial  life-force  of  the  resur- 
rected Head  could  penetrate  the  pale  portals  of  Hades 
and  preach  final  deliverance  to  the  captive  members  of 
his  mystical  body,  the  Church? 

Q.  31.     Does  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  include  the 
resurrection  of  the  body  ? 

A.  There  will  indeed  be  a  resurrection  of  the  body, 
but  not  of  all  the  material  elements  which  at  some  time 
in  life  or  at  the  time  of  final  dissolution  may  have  been 
incorporated  and  held  together  by  the  ebbing  life-force 
of  the  individual.  The  first  step  toward  a  scientific  solu- 
tion of  this  question  is  to  secure  a  clear  and  distinct  per- 
ception as  to  what  constitutes  the  body.  It  was  the  old 
orthodox  idea  that  the  resurrection  body  is  the  outward 
frame  composed  of  various  material  substances,  and  that 
it  would  be  raised  from  the  grave  by  some  sort  of  syn- 
thetic process  in  miraculous  chemistry.  This  section  of 
the  old  theology,  like  our  outward  tenements  of  clay,  is 
now  fast  passing  away  beyond  the  power  of  resurrection. 
It  was  born  under  the  reign  of  a  materialistic  planet,  and 
has  managed  to  live  through  the  past  materialistic  ages, 
but  can  no  longer  command  the  respect  of  thinking  men, 
since  the  light  of  a  more  substantial  luminary  has  made 
its  appearance  in  the  scientific  heavens.  It  has  been 
weighed  in  God's  great  balance  and  found  wanting.  If 
theologians  had  not  been  blind  to  the  existence  of  an  un- 
seen universe,  the  idea  would  never  have  been  born.  Be- 
sides, it  based  itself  upon  the  abstract  power  of  Omnipo- 
tence. We  do  not  deny  the  unlimited  power  of  God,  and 
yet  we  pity  any  "  body  of  divinity"  that  has  no  organic 
conception  of  a  concrete  truth.  We  admit  that  Om- 
nipotence might  make  a  successful  search  after  all  the 
mummies  in  Egypt  and  gather  up  all  the  original  in- 
gredients of  men  whose  material  bodies  have  been  analyzed 
in  the  chemistry  of  fire,  but  if  this  is  what  the  creed  of 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  DEAD.  825 

Christendom  implies  as  essential  to  the  resurrection  of 
the  body,  our  faith  needs  a  tonic  of  the  most  powerful 
sort.  For  our  part,  we  expect  neither  carnal  notoriety, 
church  discipline,  nor  glorious  martyrdom,  for  announc- 
ing right  here  that  we  do  not  believe  in  a  resurrection  of 
flesh  and  blood;  and  we  charge  nothing  whatever  for 
the  very  valuable  information  hereby  furnished  to  all 
materialistic  philosophers  and  theologians,  that  the  field 
of  eschatological  science  can  never  fertilize  itself  with 
bone-dust. 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  by  this  time  and  in  this 
age  of  proper  progress,  both  rational  faith  and  Christian 
science  demand  a  more  satisfactory  conception  as  to  what 
constitutes  the  essential  body  of  a  human  individual.  It 
is,  then,  in  order  to  inquire:  "With  what  body  do  they 
come?"  The  answer  is:  "  Thou  so  west  not  that  body  that 
shall  be;"  and  yet,  "God  giveth  to  each  seed  a  body  of 
its  own.''  What  is  this  "  seed?"  It  is  not  merely  the 
soul,  for  the  soul,  as  but  one  side  of  the  man's  being, 
does  not  build  for  itself  a  body,  neither  does  it  develop 
itself  into  a  bodily  form,  any  more  than  it  can  be  the  pro- 
duct of  molecular  motion  or  nervous  efflorescence,  as 
materialism  teaches.  The  body,  like  the  soul,  grounds 
itself  in  personality.  The  germinal  substance  of  man's 
entire  being  is  a  life-principle  originating  in  God,  and, 
carrying  with  it  the  impress  of  its  Great  Original,  in- 
volves the  power — the  necessity — of  endless  continuance. 

The  key  to  this  interesting  question,  so  far  as  philos- 
ophy can  contribute  anything  toward  its  solution,  is 
found  in  that  tenet  of  Substantialism  which  teaches  that 
there  is  a  pre-existent,  immaterial  and  substantial  form 
or  type  for  each  and  every  individual  in  the  organic 
world.  In  a  modified  sense,  each  human  individual  may 
use  the  language  of  the  second  Adam:  "A  body  hast 
thou  prepared  me."  The  heathen  need  not  rage  at  these 
declarations,  for  the  Psalmist  taught  such  philosophy 


328  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

three  thousand  years  ago.  "  Thine  eyes  did  see  my  sub- 
stance, yet  being  imperfect;  and  in  thy  book  all  my  mem- 
bers were  written,  which  in  continuance  were  fashioned, 
when  as  yet  there  was  none  of  them."  Yes,  "fash- 
ioned;" first  in  the  all-comprehensive  purpose  of  God, 
afterward  by  the  plastic  power  ordained  by  God  in  man. 
This  plastic  power  is  not  a  material  germ  or  starting- 
point  in  the  process  of  individual  evolution,  neither  is  it 
a  mere  mental  germ  breathed  into  embryonic  nostrils  at 
some  instant  previous  to  or  during  the  period  of  gesta- 
tion, but  a  life  principle  involving  both  mental  and  ma- 
terial possibilities,  and  a  pattern  holding  its  existence  as 
ar  organized  entity,  and,  as  such,  under  God,  the  author 
of  its  being,  whose  will  is  the  law  of  its  well-being,  pro- 
ceeds to  complete  itself  in  the  way  of  a  twofold  develop- 
ment: viz.,  the  inward,  looking  to  the  supersensible  side 
of  human  nature,  or  soul,  and  the  outward,  as  the  put- 
ting on  of  this  tabernacle. 

"A  dualism,"  says  Dr.  Eauch,  "that  admits  of  two 
principles  for  one  being,  offers  many  difficulties,  and  the 
greatest  is  to  unite  those  principles  in  a  third."  A  river 
may  originate  in  two  fountain?,  but  individual  life  can- 
not. And  because  life  cannot  be  scraped  together  it  can- 
not be  separated  into  parts. 

We  repeat,  therefore,  that  whatever  there  is  of  a  blessed 
or  first  resurrection  for  humanity  hinges  not  on  some 
colossal  stride  of  God's  abstract  omnipotence,  but  roots 
itseli  organically  in  the  last  Adam.  It  is  in  Christ,  not 
merely  as  a  fruit  of  his  own  personal  victory  over  death, 
and  his  consequent  ascension  into  the  higher  sphere  of 
glorified  humanity,  but  also  and  rather  as  a  fountain  of 
substantial  sinless  life  for  each  individual  in  organic 
union  with  him  who  is  the  "  quickening  spirit." 
Thus  "  -in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive,"  because 
"the  quickening  spirit"  begets  a  substantial  spiritual 
body  in  the  very  womb  of  the  psychical  or  inward  type 


THE  RESURRECTION  OP  THE  DEAD.  327 

which  we,  in  this  answer,  have  tried  to  define.  "T/iereis 
a  spiritual  body."  It  is  not  merely  the  immaterial  body, 
which,  according  to  Substantialism,  is  the  inward  pattern 
of  tke  outward  and  material,  but  the  inward  body 
quickened  and  made  spiritual  in  virtue  of  a  personal  life- 
union  with  the  Second  Adam,  which  the  science  of  the- 
ology calls  regeneration.  In  this  new  relation  or  trans- 
lation to  Christ,  the  life-principle  or  body  of  the  indi- 
vidual does  not  lose  its  identity,  but  begins  to  unfold 
normally,  according  to  a  different  law  of  development, 
even  "  the  law  of  the  spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus, 
which  makes  it  free  from  the  law  of  sin  and  death."  At 
the  very  moment  of  such  regeneration  "this  mortal" 
begins  to  "  put  on  immortality,"  and,  therefore,  when 
the  earthly  house  of  this  tabernacle  is  dissolved  the  new 
Adamite  is  clothed  upon  with  his  habitation  which  is 
from  heaven. 

The  only  question  remaining  to  be  touched  upon  in 
this  answer  is  when  shall  the  last  psychical  change  take 
place  in  the  history  of  each  Second- Adamite.  Down  to 
this  time,  the  weight  of  theological  sentiment,  as  formu- 
lated in  the  confessions  and  taught  in  divinity  schools, 
has  favored  its  postponement  to  some  unknown  future 
period,  when  the  dethronement  of  death  and  the  aggre- 
gate rising  of  the  dead  is  to  constitute  the  grand  and 
final  act  in  time's  great  theater.  There  is  now,  however, 
a  gradual  breaking  away  from  all  such  interpretation  of 
Scripture.  Many  believe  that  the  doctrine  never  had  any 
fellowship  with  the  truth.  As  soon  as  an  individual 
becomes  a  member  of  the  Second  Adam  there  is  a  begin- 
ning of  the  process  by  which  "this  mortal  shall  put  on 
immortality."  The  more  loyal  and  obedient  hearts  in 
the  Redeemer's  family  are  beginning  to  rebel  at  the  sense- 
less thought  that  any  part  of  man's  real  being  must  go 
down  into  the  grave  and  sleep  away  unnumbered  years  in 
the  cheerless  chambers  of  sepulchral  solitude. 


328  THE   SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

Q.  32.  Then  it  is  the  person  who  is  raised  from  the 
dead? 

A.  The  person  is  raised  from  the  state  of  the  dead; 
and  all  that  belongs  essentially  to  the  constitution  of  the 
personal  individual  will  be  subject  to  the  life-force  or 
resurrection  power  of  Him  who  is  the  Resurrection.  Just 
as  Christ,  as  the  organic  head-center  of  the  whole  human 
race,  draws  the  individuals  of  the  race  from  the  state  of 
the  dead,  so  does  personality,  or  the  personal  head-center 
of  the  human  individual,  draw  after  it  and  unto  itself  all 
that  ever  belonged  essentially  to  it,  and  all  that  is  neces- 
sary to  complete  or  recomplete  itself  in  the  resurrection 
from  the  state  of  the  dead. 

Q.  33.  Is  it,  then,  to  be  understood  that  the  Substan- 
tial Philosophy,  as  applied  to  the  Christian  doctrine  of 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  does  not  admit  the  correct- 
ness of  the  theory  that  there  will  be  a  resurrection  of  the 
identical  material  particles  formerly  placed  in  the  grave? 

A.  The  Substantial  Philosophy  cannot  admit  the  cor- 
rectness of  anything  so  much  in  conflict  with  the  legiti- 
mate deductions  of  true  science,  and  the  obvious  teach- 
ings of  Revelation.* 

Q.  34.     But  it  has  been  claimed,  in  view  of  the  fact 

*  Bishop  Foster,  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  in  his  course  of  lectures 
delivered  before  the  Chautauqua  Assembly  in  1878,  and  after- 
ward published  in  his  "  Beyond  the  Grave,"  p.  162,  says:  "  The 
word  resurrection  is  strained  when  it  is  insisted  that  it  is 
equivalent  to  the  statement  that  the  exact  body  is  to  be  re- 
stored. It  may  even  be  doubted  whether  it  is  an  assertion 
concerning  any  part  of  the  body.  Its  utmost  meaning  is,  that 
the  MAN  who  is  cut  down  by  death  shall  live  and  flourish  again  " 
(italics  and  capitals  ours).  Also  on  p.  161:  ''There  is  no  par- 
ticle of  it  [the  body]  that  it  [the  soul]  particularly  cares  for.  If 
it  should  los'e  atom  by  atom,  as  in  fact  it  does  daily,  it  would 
not  go  into  mourning.  Its  mold  in  the  grave  will  have  no 
special  charm  for  the  soul.  Let  us  cease  to  be  the  sport  of 
dreams  and  slaves  of  prejudice. 


THE  RESURRECTION  OE  THE  DEAD.  329 

that  Christ  arose  from  the  grave  in  the  same  body  that 
Joseph  of  Aramathea  wrapped  in  linen  and  laid  in  the 
tomb,  that  it  therefore  follows,  since  Christ's  resurrec- 
tion is  the  pattern  of  ours,  that  the  literal  and  material 
bodies  of  dead  men  will  also  arise  as  to  every  identical 
particle  of  dust  to  which  the  material  of  their  bodies  re- 
turned through  the  full  and  final  process  of  dissolution 
in  the  grave.  Is  such  reasoning  correct,  and  can  such  a 
conclusion  find  justification  in  the  real  premises  of  the 
case? 

A.  Christ's  resurrection  is  not  a  pattern  of  ours  in 
any  such  sense,  as  though  the  great  teacher  had  written 
a  copy  for  his  pupils  to  imitate.  It  is  the  pattern  in  the 
sense  that  he  is  the  type,  source  or  root-principle  of  all 
that  follows  organically  in  the  way  of  effect  or  conform- 
ity to  type.  To  make  Christ  a  mere  outward  pattern,  in 
a  mechanical  sense,  of  any  fact,  or  act,  or  achievement  in 
the  history  of  the  individual  Christian,  or  in  the  history 
of  his  kingdom  from  grace  to  glory,  betrays  the  wretched- 
ness of  abstract  thinking,  and  the  leanness  of  our  most 
popular  theological  literature.  Away  with  such  mince- 
pie  divinity!  Christ  indulged  in  no  rhetorical  nourish 
when  he  said:  "I  am  the  resurrection."  His  is  there- 
fore the  pattern  of  the  saint's  resurrection,  not  in  the 
sense  of  something  to  be  copied  after,  but  as  the  princi- 
ple of  resurrection  fruit.  Paul  so  understood  the  sub- 
ject treated  in  Cor.  xv.  Otherwise,  the  whole  chapter 
would  be  a  miserable  mess  of  jargon.  The  core  of  his 
masterly  argument  is  in  substance:  "If  you  do  not 
admit  the  flowing  of  the  stream,  you  deny  tho  existence 
of  the  fountain;  but  the  fountain  is  a  fact — Christ  is 
the  resurrection,  and  he  is  risen  from  the  dead,  and, 
therefore,  the  stream  must  flow  as  a  necessary  and  legiti- 
mate result,  viz:  All  who  are  substantially  and  organic- 
ally in  him  are  already  risen  with  hinij  and  the  process 
must  complete  itself  in  the  resurrection  of  their  bodies." 


330  THE  SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

But  it  does  not  follow  that  the  material  of  their  bodies 
will  arise  as  Christ  arose  in  his  material  body.  That  sort 
of  reasoning  would  lead  us  to  conclude  that  St.  Peter's 
resurrection  will  show  the  nail-prints  which  the  Apostle 
received  in  his  crucifixion,  and  a  continuance  thereof 
would  lead  us  into  absurdity,  world  without  end.  Paul 
said  that  he  was  crucified  with  Christ,  and  by  the  cross 
of  Christ.  Are  we  therefore  to  conclude  that  his  mate- 
rial body  hung  upon  the  material  cross  on  which  the 
Redeemer  died?  Even  Catholicism  in  the  doctrine  of 
the  mass,  does  not  teach  anything  more  objectionable 
than  some  of  the  materialistic  inferences  of  such  Prot- 
estant theology.  It  is  in  this  way  that  violence  is  done 
to  the  Bible,  science  and  common  sense.  And  it  will 
never  be  otherwise,  indeed,  until  a  general  and  hearty 
recognition  of  the  invisible  and  organic  entities  of  being 
becomes  the  guiding  star  of  both  faith  and  reason.  It 
must  ultimately  come  to  this.  Science  must  endure  as 
seeing  the  invisible,  or  perish  utterly  from  the  earth. 

We  believe  in  a  full  salvation,  and  in  a  full  resurrec- 
tion; but  our  faith  has  neither  room  nor  relish  for  the 
many  monstrous  deductions  of  materialistic  philosophy 
now  pestering  the  Church  as  severely  as  the  frogs  did  the 
inhabitants  of  Egypt.  If  this  is  rationalism,  we  are 
proud  to  plead  guilty  of  the  charge.  The  practice  that 
once  filled  the  Church  on  earth  with  relics  is  bad  enough; 
the  theology  that  tries  to  carry  them  into  the  Church 
triumphant  is  worse.  It  may  appeal  to  the  resurrection 
of  the  Second  Adam,  but  will  find  no  justification  in  that 
principle  and  formative  period  of  a  process  in  which  all 
saints  have  a  consequential  part.  Christ  was  without  sin, 
and  as  there  is  no  merit  in  physical  decay  there  was  no 
reason  why  God's  holy  One  should  see  corruption.  As 
pure  water  leaves  no  sediment,  so  the  immaculate  Re- 
deemer left  no  " remains"  in  his  death.  The  saint  leaves 
a  sediment  behind,  because  every  principle  and  particle 


\       °f    ^ 

THE  RESURRECTION  OP  THE  DEAD.  331 

of  his  essential  personal  being  is  filtered  through  the 
Rock  of  Ages.  Publish  it  and  keep  it  before  the  people, 
that  in  the  light  of  the  more  Substantial  Philosophy  of 
the  dawning  future  it  will  be  seen  and  acknowledged  that 
the  sedimental  deposits  of  the  grave  are  no  more  neces- 
sary to  constitute  the  saint's  complete  identical  being  in 
the  glorified  state  of  the  just  made  perfect  than  the  set- 
tlings of  impure  water  are  essential  to  the  water  as  such 
after  God  has  taken  it  up  and  clothed  it  upon  in  the 
clouds  of  Heaven,  to  reflect  the  beauty  of  the  sunbeams, 
and  give  back  the  rays  of  his  supernal  glory. 

Q.  35.  Then  it  is  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  rather 
than  merely  that  of  the  body  which  is  promised  in  Rev- 
elation, and  with  which  science  has  to  deal,  so  far  as  it 
has  a  commission  for  such  work? 

A.  The  above  question  involves  its  own  correct  answer. 
Any  proper  and  thorough  exigetical  examination  of  the 
great  majority  of  the  Scripture  passages  bearing  upon  the 
subject  of  the  resurrection  will  show  that  they  support  and 
justify  no  other  view.  Even  in  that  great  inspired  treat- 
ise, 1  Cor.  xv.,  where  the  groat  apostolic  substantialist 
discusses  this  feature  of  the  subject,  he  introduces  the 
deeper  and  more  general  topic  by  his  interrogatory  prop- 
osition: "How  say  some  among  you  that  there  is  no 
resurrection  of  the,  deadf  And  as  he  proceeds  to  dis- 
cuss its  bearings  and  effects  upon  the  resurrection  of  the 
body — a  mere  branch  of  the  general  subject — he  gives  the 
entire  materialistic  theory  away  by  the  inspired  declara- 
tion: "Thou  soivest  not  that  body  that  shall  be." 

Q.  36.  But  does  not  the  Creed  of  Christendom  express 
faith  "in  the  resurrection  of  the  body," rather  than  in  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead? 

A.  Christendom  is  not  at  variance  with  the  truth  in 
the  confession  of  its  faith  in  the  XI.  Article  of  the 
Creed.  It  must  be  remembered  that  the  old  Gnostic 
heresy  and  tendency  to  spiritualize  everything  pertaining 


,'*32  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

to  Christ's  person  and  his  work  in  the  Christian  was  still 
in  the  Church  in  those  periods  of  her  history  when  the 
Creed  was  passing  through,  the  gradual  process  of  formu- 
lation, and  that  in  order  to  hold  fast  to  the  great  truth 
of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  with  all  that  it  involves 
and  implies,  including  what  the  Gnostic  heresy  denied, 
viz.,  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  the  Church  wisely 
empJtasized  that  side  of  the  truth;  and  so  it  continues  in 
truth  and  by  toleration  even  unto  this  day.  The  time 
will  probably  come,  however,  when  Christendom,  assailed 
as  she  now  is  by  the  opposite  tendency  toward  material- 
ism, will  be  obliged  to  place  the  emphasis  back  to  where 
the  Scriptures  and  true  science  will  justify  its  location 
and  continuation  through  all  the  future  periods  of  her 
militant  history;  and  in  the  light  of  the  Substantial  Phi- 
losophy all  the  subordinate  confessions  of  faith  will  echo 
back  the  consistent  sentiment  of  one  unanimous  Amen.* 

*The  "  Heidelberg  Confession  "  was  never  intended  as  a  strait- 
jacket  for  any  man's  reserved  rights  and  opinions.  We  know 
of  nothing  in  its  teachings  in  conflict  with  our  expressed  view 
of  the  first  resurrection  as  seen  in  the  light  of  the  Substantial 
Philosophy.  If,  however,  it  should  become  manifest  in  the 
future  that  thp.t  venerable  and  amiable  little  book,  or  for  that 
matter  any  other  confession  in  Christendom,  is  evidently  at 
variance  with  the  obvious  teachings  of  true  science,  the  symbol 
must  be  made  to  unde-go  any  such  change  and  modification  as 
may  be  necessary  to  bring  it  into  harmony  with  the  truth.  We 
consider  the  foregoing  assertion  as  neither  very  original  nor 
radical,  but  a  proposition  which  must  be  regarded  as  fundament- 
ally correct  as  long  as  progress  is  the  watch-word  of  science, 
and  perfection  the  pole-star  of  human  history.  And  we  remark 
further  that  science  is  not  under  bonds  to  appear  before  the  bar 
of  the  Bible,  wrhen  the  latter  is  considered  as  a  mere  volume  of 
valuable  archives  to  be  ransacked  at  random  by  the  vandalism 
of  materialistic  induction.  Both  the  teachings  of  science  and 
the  Bible  as  now  constituted,  and  as  it  now  incorporates  not 
only  divine,  but  also  human  elements — which,  it  is  reasonably 
presumed,  may,  notwithstanding  its  recent  revision,  possess  at 
least  some  slight  possibility  of  further  defects— must  finally 


THE   RESURRECTION  OF  THE  DEAD.  333 

Q.  37.  Then  Substantialism  as  applied  to  Christianity 
is  not  at  variance  with  the  Gospel  of  Christ  and  the  blessed 
hopes  which  its  promises  kindle  in  the  hearts  of  Christian 
men? 

A.  God  forbid;  yea,  Substantialism  establishes  the 
hope  of  immortality;  it  tends  to  show  how  the  law  of  the 
spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus  makes  human  individuals 
free  from  the  law  of  sin  and  death;  it  justifies  the  reason- 
able expectations  of  the  human  soul;  it  encourages  the 
noblest  yearnings  of  the  home-sick  heart;  it  catches  every 
promise  of  Revelation,  and  then  from  a  truly  scientific 
standpoint  it  shows  that  the  dignity  and  destiny  of  God's 
chidren  require  that  they  should  rise  from  the  interme- 
diate state  of  the  dead  and  shout  their  triumph  through 
the  skies. 

appear  for  judgment  at  the  bar  of  God's  Word,  which  is  "for- 
ever settled  in  the  heavens."  This  substantial  Word  of  God  is 
the  Truth,  whose  goings  forth  are  from  of  old,  from  everlasting, 
and  from  whose  decisions  in  all  matters  of  conflicting  theories 
there  can  be  no  appeal. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

OUK   FUTURE    STATE    AND   PLACE. 

QUESTION  1.  What  has  been  shown  in  the  former 
chapters  of  this  book? 

ANSWER.  By  way  of  beneficial  recapitulation  it  may 
be  stated  in  brief  that,  according  to  the  teachings  of  the 
Substantial  Philosophy,  and  in  a  light  never  previously 
shed  upon  the  organic  chain  of  subjects  treated  herein, 
that  the  Personal  and  Infinite  God  is  the  fountain  and 
source  of  all  normal  things;  that  God  is  a  substantial 
being,  and  that,  therefore,  the  universe  as  derived  from 
him  is  constituted  of  substantial  entities;  that  these  en- 
tities naturally  classify  themselves  into  material  and  im- 
material substances;  that  as  matter  was  not  made  from 
nothing  it  can  never  go  to  nothing;  that  all  immaterial 
substances,  whether  vital  or  non-vital,  are  also  force-ele- 
ments in  nature  and  no  more  destructible  than  matter; 
that  these  force-elements  or  immaterial  substances  are 
either  such  as  belong  to  the  inorganic  order  of  being,  as 
in  chemistry  or  physics,  or  to  the  organic  domain  thereof; 
that  the  highest  finite  form  of  immaterial  substance  holds 
its  being  in  the  mental  and  moral  constitution  of  man; 
that  man  is  the  center  of  creation,  and  in  man's  person- 
ality creation  comes  to  have  meaning,  and  awakens  to  a 
consciousness  of  itself;  that  such  personality  involves 
also  of  internal  necessity  a  consciousness  of  God,  the 
primordial  source  and  perpetual  center  of  all  personal- 
ities; that  this  God-consciousness  in  man  is  the  Divine 


OUR  FUTURE  STATE  AND  PLACE.  335 

image  apprehending  the  original;  that  this  image  is  not 
a  mere  shadow,  but  a  vital  drop  of  God's  undiminishable 
substance  in  the  being  that  bears  his  image;  that  in  virtue 
of  this  peculiar  indwelling  of  God  in  man  the  latter 
possessed  the  power  of  progress  and  transition  to  a  higher 
realm  than  the  present  order  of  human  life;  that  this 
possibility  of  rational  and  moral  advancement  involved 
also  of  necessity  the  possibility  of  failure  in  the  way  of 
actual  sin  and  death;  that  such  possibility  to  sin  became 
actualized  in  the  very  beginning  of  human  history;  that 
in  such  actualization  humanity  passed  into  an  abnormal 
state  with  a  consequent  tendency  toward  the  state  of  the 
dead;  that  for  the  purpose  of  counteracting  this  abnor- 
mal tendency  the  second  head  of  humanity — Immanuel  — 
God  with  us — became  also  Sacrifice  and  Kedeemer  by 
plunging  voluntarily  into  the  surging  and  seething  death- 
stream,  and  swam  along  down  with  the  swelling  current 
until  by  the  counteracting  force  of  his  own  high  and 
holy  life  he  checked  the  raging,  roaring  tide  at  the  very 
threshold  of  eternal  damnation;  that  such  neutralization 
was  fully  and  finally  accomplished  in  the  intermediate 
state  or  hades;  that  as  soon  as  the  tide  was  thus  checked 
death  had  no  more  dominion  over  him,  and  that  all 
power  was  his  in  heaven  and  earth;  that  in  virtue  of 
such  victory  over  death  he  arose  from  the  dead;  that  in 
such  victory  manifested  in  his  resurrection,  the  demon- 
stration of  the  Spirit  and  power  was  given  to  his  sermon 
in  hades,  whereby  he  had  preached  deliverance  to  the 
captive  dead;  that  even  some  of  the  graves  were  opened 
in  testimony  of  the  glorious  achievement;  that  some  of 
the  bodies  of  the  saints  walked  into  Jerusalem  to  swell 
the  triumphal  march  of  David's  risen  Lord  and  Son; 
that  Christ  draws  with  him  to  a  higher  plane  of  life  all 
individuals  between  whom  and  Himself  there  is  a 
healthy  affinity  in  the  substantial  elements  of  holy  and 
normal  life;  in  short,  it  has  been  shown  and  seen  that 


336  THE   SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

the  Substantial  Philosophy  after  solving  satisfactorily  all 
the  fundamental  problems  of  finite  being  and  human  life 
could  also  pass  with  the  rod  and  staff  of  Science  and 
Revelation  through  the  valley  of  the  shadow  of  death, 
proving,  as  no  other  system  of  philosophy  ever  could, 
that,  notwithstanding  the  throes  and  threats  of  corporeal 
dissolution,  death  does  not  end  all  that  there  is  of  man 
and  for  man. 

Q.  2.  What  now  still  lies  before  us  in  the  full  prob- 
lem and  comprehensive  volume  of  human  life? 

A.  Our  future  state  and  place  after  the  resurrection 
from  the  dead. 

Q.  3.  In  considering  our  future  state,  what  is  it  that 
first  of  all  enforces  its  claims  upon  our  attention? 

A.  Immortality,  which  "  oversweeps  all  pains,  all  tears, 
all  time,  all  fears — and  peals  like  the  eternal  thunders  of 
the  deep  into  my  ears  this  truth:  Thou  livest  forever." 

Q.  4.     Then  man  is  immortal? 

A.  Either  man  is  immortal  or  the  whole  creation  has 
no  higher  mission  than  to  mock  God's  noblest  creature 
and  man's  noblest  yearnings.* 


*  Now,  if  man's  spiritual  being  or  inner  man,  at  death,  simply 
steps  out  of  this  physical  structure,  retaining,  as  we  hold,  its 
personal  and  spiritual  identity  and  character,  it  is  but  a  contin- 
uation of  the  same  conscious  and  spiritual  life  that  we  possess 
here,  raised  to  greater  perfection  or  lowered  to  greater  degrada- 
tion according  to  real,  intrinsic  character  in  this  life,  since  the 
real  man  is  then  brought  nakedly  to  face  the  real  environment 
of  his  selfhood  without  the  obscurations  of  physical  surround- 
ings. To  say  that  man  is  not  naturally  immortal  by  virtue  of 
his  creation  in  God's  image,  and  by  virtue  of  his  having  received 
a  spark  from  God's  self-existent  being  which  constitutes  his  con 
scious,  spiritual  entity,  is  to  say  that  Adam  was  not  immortal 
before  the  fall  and  that  he  would  not  have  continued  to  be  im- 
mortal had  he  never  sinned.  To  be  a  Christian,  redeemed  here 
by  Christ,  is  to  be  restored  to  the  same  immortality  that  Adam 


OUR  FUTURE  STATE  AND  PLACE.  337 

Q.  5.     What  does  immortality  involve? 

A.  First  of  all,  it  implies  everlasting  duration;  but  it 
involves  more  than  duration — more  than  everlastingness. 
If  matter  is  indestructible  it  is  everlasting,  but  it  is  not 
for  that  reason  immortal.  Rolling  suns  may  continue  in 
their  eternal  circlings,  but  still  they  are  nothing  more 
than  mammoth  meteors  in  the  sky. 

possessed  before  falling  under  the  condemnation  of  sin,  so  far  as 
our  spiritual  entity  is  concerned.  If  that  redeemed  life  contin- 
ues after  the  body  dies,  we  do  not  see  why  it  is  not  a  continu- 
ance of  man's  primeval  immortality.  That  immortality  is 
promised  as  a  gift  of  God  to  the  righteous  is  an  intimation  that 
the  condition  of  the  unrighteous  after  death  by  virtue  of  their 
real  character  and  degradation,  will  be  so  nearly  a  state  of  per- 
petual death  as  to  be  virtually  the  opposite  of  the  higher  immor- 
tality, though  in  a  modified  and  limited  sense  they  two  will  be 
immortal,  since  because  possessing  absolute  deathlessness  and 
spiritual  consciousness  they  will  never  absolutely  die.  Perfect 
immortality  in  its  sublimer  sense,  as  the  gift  of  God,  will  only 
be  theirs  who  are  in  character  Godlike,  and  in  this  higher  sense 
life  and  immortality  were  first  brought  to  light  or  revealed  to 
man  by  the  gospel. 

Our  argument,  therefore,  for  the  immortality  of  man,  mean- 
ing thereby  his  perpetual  and  indestructible  existence  as  a  spirit- 
ual and  conscious  entity,  is  based  on  the  incontrovertible  fact 
that  his  personal  and  spiritual  entity  came  originally  as  a  drop 
from  out  God's  spiritual  and  vital  being.  Man  as  a  personal  and 
spiritual  entity  was  noc  made  out  of  nothing  any  more  than  his 
body  was  made  out  of  nothing.  His  spirit,  soul,  mind,  and  life 
as  a  whole  was  a  drop  of  God's  intelligent,  self-conscious  being, 
and  as  such  shaped  into  God's  image,  became  the  human  ego 
around  which  forms  are  reproduced  from  generation  to  genera- 
tion as  corresponding  physical  organisms.  The  fact  that  this 
inner  man  is  substantial,  demonstrates  its  indestructibility,  and 
the  fact  that  this  indestructible  entity  was  originally  a  part  of 
God,  consisting  of  His  vital,  mental,  and  spiritual  conscious- 
ness, demonstrates  man's  immortality  by  science  and  the  nature 
of  things,  whether  this  inner  entity  be  incased  in  a  corporeal 
body,  as  at  present,  or  not. — Dr.  Hall  in  Microcosm,  Vol.  II., 
p.  56. 


838  THE   SUBSTANTIAL    PHILOSOPHY. 

Q.  6.  "What  more  does  the  true  idea  of  immortality 
involve? 

A.  It  involves  everlasting  life,  and  yet  even  everlast- 
ing life  is  not  necessarily  immortality.  The  tree  of  life 
in  the  midst  of  the  Paradise  of  God,  if  it  be  a  literal  tree, 
is  not  immortal  in  the  high  sense  in  which  immortality 
may  belong  to  man.  If  the  four  beasts  before  the  throne 
should  continue  there  forever  as  literal  beasts  they  would 
not  be  immortal. 

Q.  7.  What  still  more  is  comprised  in  the  expressive 
word? 

A.  It  includes  the  element  of  consciousness,  or  the 
ability  to  be  conscious  of  self-existence,  and  even  this 
definition  is  not  entirely  exhaustive  of  the  full  and  deep 
meaning  of  the  term.  The  wicked  are  conscious  of  their 
own  miserable  existence,  and  yet  it  would  be  a  travesty 
of  truth  to  speak  of  immortality  where  conscious  wretch- 
edness does  nothing  more  than  darken  the  dungeon  walls 
of  deep  damnation.  Duration,  life  and  consciousness 
combined  can  only  reach  the  proper  realm  of  immortal- 
ity by  virtue  of  that  higher  life  which  came  fontally  into 
humanity  in  the  Incarnation,  and  which  triumphed  over 
death  in  him  who  brought  immortality  to  light  in  the 
Gospel  of  his  resurrection,  and  who  alone  hath  immortal- 
ity to  give  unto  such  as  "seek  for  immortality/' and 
such  as  are  made  recipients  of  it  in  regeneration,  when 
that  which  is  otherwise  begins  to  put  on  immortality. 

Q.  8.  Was  the  human  race  immortal  as  it  stood  pri- 
mevally  in  Adam? 

A.  It  was  potentially  immortal,  and  possessed  the 
possibility  of  becoming  such  in  actuality. 

Q.  9.  Does  immortality  belong  exclusively  to  the 
soul,  or  may  it  also  be  predicated  of  the  bodies  of  the 
saints? 

A.  Scientifically  speaking  it  belongs  exclusively  to 
neither  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  term.  Immortality 


OUR  FUTURE  STATE  AND  PLACE.  339 

proper  can  be  predicated  only  of  personality  in  the  high- 
est form  of  life. 

Q.  10.     Will  men  have  material  bodies  where  saints 
immortal  reign? 

A.  There  is  no  reason  whatever  to  suppose  that  they 
will  be  so  radically  changed  in  the  essential  and  dual 
constitution  of  their  nature  that  in  the  future  state  they 
will  appear  to  themselves  as  having  been  torn  to  pieces 
and  fashioned  after  another  pattern.  The  tendency  of 
all  known  finite  life  is  to  exterrialize  itself  in  material. 
There  is  no  evidence  that  God  ever  blew  the  breath  of 
life  into  a  vacuum.  Indeed,  material  has  no  higher 
mission  in  the  economy  of  Nature  than  to  furnish  the 
opportunity  for  life  to  manifest  itself.  Here,  the  body 
without  life  is  a  corpse,  and  life,  however  substantial  an 
entity,  without  the  body,  is  without  its  complement ; 
and  there  is  no  authority  either  in  science  or  Revelation 
to  justify  the  supposition  that  in  the  future  normal  state 
of  man's  being  God  will  put  asunder  what  he  in  the 
present  state  had  joined  together.  The  fact  that  the 
immaterial  side  of  man's  being  may  exist  independent  of 
the  material  side,  or  corporeal  body,  is  no  evidence  that 
such  is  either  his  normal  state  or  that  he  will  continue 
thus  forever  unclothed.  The  separation  of  the  material 
from  the  immaterial  substances  which  here  constitute 
the  man  in  the  entirety  of  his  being  is  an  abnormal  state 
of  human  existence — it  is  the  state  of  the  dead,  and  a 
continuation  of  this  state  through  eternity  would  be 
poor  evidence  that  death  had  been  entirely  swallowed 
up  in  victory.  Indeed,  the  mere  intimation  of  such  a 
possibility  is  not  very  complimentary  to  him  who  has 
proclaimed  himself  the  God  of  battles,  and  the  complete 
vanquisher  of  death  in  those  who  have  received  the 
benefits  of  the  remedy  found  fontally  in  the  Victor's 
person.  Substantialisrn  is  as  much  opposed  to  vapory 
spiritualisticism  as  it  is  to  bold  materialism.  Neither 


340  THE  SUBSTANTIAL   PHILOSOPHY. 

does  it  teach,  as  did  some  of  the  old  pagan  philosophers, 
that  matter  is  evil,  per  se,  and  that  continually,  and  a 
consequent  enemy  of  the  Spirit.  It  has  rather  empha- 
sized the  fact  so  generally  ignored  in  current  theories 
that  matter  is  helpless  and  unable  to  perform  that  which 
under  God  can  be  accomplished  only  by  the  immaterial 
and  substantial  force-elements  operative  in  being.  If 
this  inward  life-force  of  ours — whether  we  call  it  soul, 
spiritual  body  or  inner  man — seeks  to  clothe  itself  upon 
in  this  present  section  of  human  existence,  there  is  no 
authority,  whatever,  either  in  Nature  or  Kevelation,  to 
justify  the  baseless  supposition  that  it  will  be  obliged  to 
go  naked  through  all  eternity.  The  analogies  from 
Nature  all  around,  and  the  promises  of  God  from  above, 
encourage  the  reasonable  demand  of  the  spirit  within, 
as  if  in  abhorrence  of  everlasting  nakedness — "  Not  for 
that  we  would  be  unclothed,  but  clothed  upon,  that 
mortality  might  be  swallowed  up  of  life  \" 

Q.  11.  If,  then,  we  are  to  continue  to  exist  in  the 
future  state  as  beings  reorganized  after  the  present  type 
of  our  dual  organisms,  and  if — as  it  logically  follows 
— our  bodies  in  the  future  shall  be  as  immortal  as  our 
spirits,  does  it  not  also  follow  that  our  present  bodies  are 
just  as  immortal  as  the  spirits  which  now  inhabit  them, 
since  they,  as  well  as  their  spiritual  tenants,  are  to  con- 
tinue identically  the  same  ? 

A.  The  foregoing  question  contains  much  pertinency. 
According  to  the  Substantial  Philosophy,  as  shown  in 
Chapter  XI.,  there  is  an  inward,  immaterial  side,  coun- 
terpart or  type  of  the  outward  body  which  incorporates 
material.  The  two  are  in  exact  correspondence  with 
each  other,  according  to  the  general  biological  law  of 
conformity  to  type.*  This  separation  in  death,  if,  in- 

*  Here  then  we  meet  the  question  squarely  and  risk  the  con- 
sequences. If  the  soul  is  an  organized  entity  it  must  have 


OUR  FUTURE  STATE  AND  PLACE.  341 

deed,  there  be  any  real  separation  at  all,  is  neither  nat- 
ural nor  an  essential  part  in  the  proper  history  of  human 
life,  but  the  result  of  the  workings  of  an  abnormal  force. 
In  any  such  separation,  the  inward  type  can  suffer  no 
corruption,  but  continues  intact,  and  inseparably  united 
with  the  equally  immaterial  spirit.  It  follows,  therefore 
— since  this  abnormal  force  will  have  been  neutralized 
according  to  the  workings  of  the  spirit  of  life  in  Christ — 
that  in  the  resurrection  the  inward  immaterial  type,  as 
well  as  the  spirit,  will  take  again  its  outward  material 
form.  Thus  it  will  be  demonstrated  that  what  God  had 
originally  designed  should  be  joined  together  in  everlast- 
ing wedlock  cannot  be  put  and  kept  eternally  asunder. 
Substantialism,  therefore,  emphasizes  the  immortality  of 

organs,  and  this  organized  entity  with  its  organs  must  be  in  the 
form  of  the  physical  body  it  inhabits,  because  an  organism 
however  intangible,  must  necessarily  have  some  form,  and 
there  seems  to  be  no  earthly  or  heavenly  reason  why  our  inner 
man  should  assume  any  other  form  than  that  of  the  outer  man. 
In  the  next  place,  this  inner  man  when  it  leaves  the  outer  man 
at  death  must  reasonably  be  expected  to  retain  its  general 
form  as  it  passes  into  the  spirit-realm,  and  still  continue  an 
organized  entity  with  the  same  organs  it  possessed  here, 
namely,  eyes,  ears,  brain,  fingers,  etc.  This  unavoidably  im- 
plies the  employment  of  these  organs  upon  surrounding  objects 
in  real  acts,  such  as  thinking,  seeing,  hearing,  handling,  etc. 
If  the  ego  or  the  conscious  1  in  the  spirit- world  uses  its  eyes  and 
ears,  it  must  have  an  incorporeal  or  psychical  environment 
consisting  of  real  objects  to  see  and  real  sounds  to  hear;  for 
how  can  the  organized  ego  use  its  eyes  if  there  are  no  real 
psychical  objects  or  incorporeal  forms  upon  which  the  psychical 
sight  can  be  exercised?  The  whole  drift  of  the  Scripture  is  to 
teach  that  man  in  the  next  life,  even  now  before  any  general  day 
of  resurrection,  is  man  in  the  real  sense  of  the  word,  with  his 
faculties  and  powers  complete We  most  confidently  ex- 
pect when  we  shuffle  off  this  mortal  coil,  that  we  will  be  greeted 
will  real  sights  and  real  sounds  from  the  soul's  new  environ- 
ment vastly  surpassing  in  beauty  and  grandeur  and  loveliness, 
anything  ever  addressed  to  mortal  eyes  or  ears  in  this  life. — 
Dr.  Hall,  Microcosm,  Vol.  II.,  p.  35. 


842  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

the  person,  rather  than  the  immortality  of  either  the  soul 
or  the  body.  They  are  only  different  sides  of  one  personal 
being.  The  union  of  all  the  forces  and  functions  of 
spirit,  soul,  and  body,  inner  man  and  outward  man,  enter 
of  necessity  into  the  proper  and  complete  constitution  of 
the  immortal  person.* 

Q.  12.  Then  the  saints  will  be  clothed  upon  with 
material  bodies  in  the  future  state? 

A.  Science  and  Revelation  unite  their  testimony  in 
the  justification  of  such  a  belief. 

Q.  13.  Do3s  material  in  heaven  differ  from  matter  as 
we  now  have  some  knowledge  of  it  on  earth? 

A.  It  may  be  more  attenuated  and  must  be  more  re- 
fined than  in  its  terrestrial  state.  There  are  bodies 
celestial  and  bodies  terrestrial.  Celestial  bodies  incor- 
porate material  in  its  highest  attainable  form,  even  as  the 
blooming  flower  incorporates  material  more  refined  than 
that  which  enters  into  the  crude  leaf  at  the  base  of  the 
same  plant.  This  order  of  things  displays  the  wise  and 
beautiful  designs  of  Providence.  He  does  not  allow  the 
flower  to  spring  into  that  beauty  of  which  its  own  deli- 
cacy is  a  constitutional  part  until  after  the  rising  plant 
has  lifted  the  bud  above  the  earth  and  the  devouring  in- 
sects that  harbor  around  the  base.  God  has  shown  this 
same  benevolent  wisdom  upon  a  higher  plane  in  ordain- 
ing the  order  of  succession  through  which  his  rational 
creatures  may  pass  as  they  climb  the  progressive  stairway 
of  human  existence.  Anything  like  a  reverse  order  would 

*  In  no  organism,  beside  the  human  body,  is  matter  .so  nearly 
allied  to  spirit,  and  so  transparent  with  the  transfused  glories  of 
a  higher  world.  In  man's  body  the  image  of  God  is  represented 
in  a  material  form!  Still  more.  In  the  incarnation  of  Christ, 
Deity  is  personally  united  with  matter.  This  is  the  house  in 
which  God  dwells!  The  Saviour,  being  "  in  fashion  as  a  man," 
united  the  infinite  Spirit  with  finite  matter. — Dr.  Harbaugh  in 
"  The  Heavenly  Home,"  p.  197. 


OUR  FUTURE  STATE  AND  PLACE.  343 

fill  our  most  confiding  faith  with  tormenting  doubts  and 
fears.  A  refined  and  celestial  body  on  earth,  amidst  the 
snows  and  storms  of  "  the  former  things"  would  be  as 
much  out  of  place  as  a  blooming  rose  on  Greenland's 
frosty  face,  or  tropic  fruits  beneath  the  icy  pole.  So,  too, 
if  it  were  possible  for  a  body  of  literal  "flesh  and  blood  " 
to  inherit  the  celestial  kingdom  of  God,  its  presence  there 
would  shock  the  eternal  fitness  of  things  and  send  a  note 
of  discord  through  all  the  choral  symphonies  of  heaven. 

Q.  14.  "Will  the  bodies  of  the  saints  become  so  attenu- 
ated and  refined  as  to  be  absolutely  intangible?* 

A.  Neither  refined  matter  nor  immaterial  substance 
necessarily  involves  intangibility. 

*  Much  vaguity,  so  to  speak,  exists  in  the  minds  of  most  per- 
sons as  to  the  meaning  of  the  words  tangible  and  intangible. 
The  common  definition,  as  given  in  our  dictionaries,  confines 
the  meaning  of  these  terms  to  the  tactile  sense,  or  the  sense  of 
touch,  commonly  called  feeling.  This,  however,  is  not  suffi* 
ciently  broad.  The  five  senses  constitute  a  chain  of  gradations 
of  tangibility,  or,  more  properly,  modifications  of  the  sense 
of  touch.  In  its  lowest  phase  we  feel  the  material  body  by 
its  actual  contact  with  our  tactile  nerves.  A  still  higher  phase 
of  this  lowest  sense  of  the  animal  economy  is  experienced  in 
feeling  the  touch  of  immaterial  substance,  such  as  heat,  radiat- 
ing against  the  cuticle.  But  the  highest  phase  of  this  sense  is 
experienced  in  the  contact  of  the  mind  upon  the  nervous  system 
of  the  body,  causing  physical  pain  or  pleasure,  according  to  the 
mental  impressions  made. 

Next  above  the  sense  of  touch  comes  the  sense  of  taste,  which 
any  one,  with  a  little  reflection,  can  easily  resolve  into  a  modi- 
fied form  of  touch,  requiring,  as  we  know,  the  actual  contact  of 
the  flavorous  substance  with  our  gustatory  membrane  and 
nervous  system  to  produce  the  sensation.  Smell  is  still  a  higher 
form  or  modification  of  touch,  requiring  the  same  actual  contact 
of  odorous  substance  with  the  nasal  membrane  and  the  olfactory 
nerve  to  cause  that  peculiar  sensation,  no  difference  whether  the 
odorous  particles  be  material  or  immaterial  substance. — Dr.  Hall, 
in  Microcosm,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  188. 


344  THE    SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

Q.  15.  Are  not  Substantialistn  and  Swedcnborgian- 
ism  at  this  point  essentially  the  same? 

A.  The  Substantial  Philosophy  accepts  the  truth 
wherever  found,  whether  preached  by  the  angels  in 
heaven,  Swedenborg  in  Europe,  or  the  devils  in  hell.* 

Q.  16.  Will  our  transition  from  this  to  the  future 
state  produce  any  change  in  the  relation  now  existing 
between  the  material  and  the  immaterial  substances  in 
the  constitution  of  our  individual  persons? 

A.  It  will  indeed.  The  former  order  of  things  in 
this  particular  will  pass  away,  or  be  reversed.  Notwith- 
standing the  superiority  of  mind  over  matter,  the  im- 
material here  is  largely  conditioned  by  the  material. 
Hereafter  the  spirit  will  be  emancipated — not /row,  but 
from  under  matter,  which  state  of  subordination  is  at 
least  largely  abnormal  and  the  result  of  sin.  When  the 
spirit  is  thus  emancipated,  the  body,  no  less  than  itself, 
will  be  a  beneficiary  of  the  change,  and  the  entire  disen- 

*  Few  people  have  understood  Swedenborg.  The  writer  takes 
off  his  hat,  partially  out  of  reverence  for  the  great  celestial 
rambler,  but  principally  to  permit  that  necessary  expansion  of 
the  cerebrum  actually  required  for  the  comprehension  of  such 
"mystical  lore."  Swedenborg  seems  to  have  been  a  "personal 
paradox,*'  and  his  writings  an  insolvable  riddle.  That  they  con- 
tain some  great  pioneer  truths  for  the  ages  to  come  has  not  been 
denied  by  men  who  have  the  courage  to  examine  all  things  and 
hold  fast  that  which  is  good.  John  Wesley,  Emerson  and  Car- 
lyle  were  only  a  few  of  the  many  who  looked  upon  him  as  "  one 
of  the  mastodons  of  literature,"  and  his  mind  "  majestic,  though 
in  ruins."  How  rich  the  veins  of  his  original  thought,  and  yet 
how  apocryphal  are  all  his  writings.  If  the  Baron's  New 
Jerusalen  Church  is  the  one  that  "cometh  down  from  God  out 
of  heaven,"  St.  John's  description  of  the  descending  bride  con- 
tains more  flattery  than  truth.  Swedenborgianism,  with  its 
dreams  and  prophecies,  its  revelations  and  speculations,  its 
strained  analogies  and  abominable  absurdities,  is  a— a  dead  lion; 
and  he  proves  himself  a  man  of  Samsonian  powers  who  takes 
the  mellific  nectar  of  truth  from  such  a  hive.  The  Substantial 


OUR  FUTURE  STATE  AND  PLACE.  345 

thralled  person  will  arise  to  a  state  in  which  it  will  be  un- 
conditioned, except  by  its  own  finite  limitations  and  the 
impassable  and  bridgelcss  chasm  between  itself  and  the 
sphere  of  the  infinite. 

Q.  17.  But  will  not  the  finite  saints  be  permitted  to 
enter  into  the  very  presence  of  the  infinite  God? 

A.  The  pure  in  heart  shall  stand  in  the  immediate 
presence  of  God's  person,  admire  the  beauties  of  his  face 
and  all  the  glories  of  the  place,  but  such  approach  even 
into  the  presence  chamber  of  the  King  immortal  does  not 
imply  that  the  saints  will  ever  transcend  the  realm  of  the 
finite  an}7  more  than  the  humming  bird  passes  into  the 
realm  of  the  human  by  being  admitted  into  the  palatial 
residence  of  the  prince? 

Q.  18.     And  the  saints  shall  dwell  together? 

A.  It  is  an  axiom  in  mathematics  that  all  things 
near  a  common  center  are  necessarily  near  to  each  other. 
This  truth  may  be  applied  to  the  question  of  the  approxi- 
mate nearness  of  the  saints  to  each  other  in  the  society 
of  the  redeemed, 

Philosophy  is  something  superior  to  this  heterologous  budget  of 
riotous  assertions  and  beautiful  theories.  Instead  of  being  what 
Swedenborg  taught,  Substantialism  is  just  what  he  needed  to 
guide  the  sublime  flights  of  his  erratic  soul  and  ethereal  piety; 
and,  further,  it  is  precisely  what  some  of  its  self-important  and 
superficial  critics  need  to  distinguish  between  the  verities  of 
God  and  the  vagaries  of  men.  Indeed,  many  of  the  objections 
raised  against  the  new  departure  savor  largely  of  the  most 
supreme  childishness.  We  are  about  tired  hearing  the  cry  of 
"  spooks  in  the  garret."  For  our  part,  if  there  were  no  other 
alternative,  we  would  sooner  harbor  a  few  small  spooks  in  our 
intellectual  attic  than  to  have  the  upper  story  destitute  of  all 
positive  contents,  and  damned  with  that  "respectable"  sort  of 
cowardice  which  prevents  all  earnest  search  after  something 
more  substantial  than  spooks,  more  entitative  than  shadow, 
more  noble  than  mere  matter,  and  more  enduring  than  the 
flashings  and  flickerings  of  molecular  motion. 


346  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

s '  Where  the  saints  of  all  ages  in  harmony  meet, 
Their  Saviour  and  brethren  transported  to  greet; 
Where  the  anthems  of  rapture  unceasingly  roll, 
And  the  smile  of  the  Lord  is  the  feast  of  the  soul." 

Q.  19.     And  shall  they  know  each  other? 

A.  Why  not?  If  they  know  each  other  here  where 
they  know  only  in  part,  shall  they  not  know  each  other 
better  when  that  which  is  perfect  is  come?  Shall  the 
saints  in  heaven  who  are  near  and  dear  to  each  other  and 
in  some  respects  alike,  have  less  of  the  power  of  recog- 
nition than  the  rich  man  in  Hades  when  he  discerned 
Lazarus  far  away  across  the  impassable  gulf? 

Q.  20.  And  are  the  old  relations  of  earth  to  any  ex- 
tent renewed  in  heaven? 

A.  The  relations  which  were  constituted  here  for  a 
subordinate  purpose  will  end  with  the  serving  of  such 
purpose;  but  those  relations  which  ground  themselves  in 
the  essential  substance  of  humanity  and  in  the  character 
of  human  society  as  it  involves  proper  permanency,  will 
run  forward  through  the  endless  ages  of  the  future. 

Q.  21.  But  will  there  not  be  peculiar  friendships  in 
heaven? 

A.  There  will  be  no  such  peculiar  -loves  as  those 
which  have  a  peculiar  mission  here,  and  whicli  are  put 
off  with  the  peculiarities  of  the  tabernacles  that  en- 
shrined them.  Reunited  husband  and  wife  will  not  con- 
tinue to  love  as  husband  and  wife,  for  in  this  respect 
they  shall  be  as  the  angels  who  were  never  called  to 
propagate  angelic  species  through  matrimonial  felicities; 
and  yet  life  is  too  substantial  and  the  institutions  of  God 
too  sacred  to  permit  even  the  rolling  years  of  eternity 
to  wipe  out  the  holiest  landmarks  of  time  or  obliterate 
the  hallowed  memories  interwoven  with  all  the  woof  of 
the  history  of  humanity's  progress  through  this  world 
and  its  rise  to  the  more  excellent  glory  in  the  world 


OUR  FUTURE  STATE  AND  PLACE.  347 

above.  The  fond  associations  which  are  sealed  and  sanc- 
tified here  by  the  holiest  ordinations  of  God  can  never 
wear  away.  Sailing  upon  the  vital  current  which  took 
its  rise  in  God's  own  substantial  being,  fond  memory 
will  still  continue  to  dive  beneath  the  surface  and  bring 
up  delight  from  other  days  gone  by.  If  love  is  the 
highest  form  of  activity  in  God,  it  is  reasonable  to  sup- 
pose that  it  is  the  most  permanent  emotion  springing 
from  the  life  of  man.  Surely  human  love  in  its  best  ter- 
restrial estate  is  not  a  flower  of  such  a  transient  character 
as  to  waste  all  its  fragrance  on  the  desert  air  of  this  bleak 
world.  When  transplanted  with  its  substantial  life-root, 
it  will  continue  to  bloom  with  some  proper  peculiarities 
in  Heaven.  Why  not?  He  who  came  not  to  destroy  the 
law  loved  John  with  peculiar  tenderness  here.  May  not 
the  saints  then  hope  to  love  their  former  intimate  friends 
with  tender  fondness  after  they  shall  have  exchanged  the 
lower  loves  of  life  on  earth  for  the  higher  life  of  love  in 
Heaven?  .  .  .  But  here  the  author's  eyes  grow  blind 
with  a  flowing  solution  of  sacred  sympathy  for  loved 
ones  gone  before,  as  if  some  dear  one  out  upon  the  eter- 
nal ocean  deep  had  stirred  the  calmness  of  his  sainted 
breast,  and  dashed  the  gentle  spray  upon  our  shore. 
Bishop  Foster  is  at  our  right  hand  and  speaks  to  us  from 
p.  193  of  his  "  Beyond  the  Grave."  Let  him  come  to 
the  front  and  speak  for  us  until  these  tears  are  wiped 
away.  He  speaks;  hear  him:  "We  cannot  doubt  that 
those  whom  we  love  most  here,  love  most  purely  and  ten- 
derly, will  be  likely  to  be  dearest  to  us  there.  They  will 
still  be  our  treasures.  All  that  they  ever  were  to  us  will 
be  remembered;  the  hold  they  had  on  our  being  will  still 
be  felt  in  more  exalted  forms.  The  noble  passion  puri- 
fied from  all  alloy,  will  rise  into  far  grander  and  more 
ravishing  intensity.  The  relations  will  be  sunk,  but  the 
bond  will  be  tightened.  They  will  be  greatly  more  to  us 
than  they  ever  were  on  earth,  and  more  to  us,  we  may 


348  THE    SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

venture  to  believe,  than  they  could  have  been,  had  they 
not  been  bone  of  our  bone  and  heart  of  our  heart." 

Q.  22.  Will  the  saints  be  confined  to  any  particular 
locality? 

A.  They  will  not  be  limited  in  their  movements  or 
circumscribed  by  any  tiling  except  their  constitution  as 
finite  beings.  They  will  have  sufficient  room  to  gratify 
their  thirst  for  knowledge  of  God's  creative  power,  and 
ample  means  to  range  the  fields  of  heaven  and  gaze  upon 
the  wonders  of  redeeming  love.  It  lias  been  shown  in 
this  book  that  force  can  travel  by  proper  means  of  con- 
duction to  any  inviting  element  able  to  receive  it;  and 
as  life  is  the  highest  form  of  force,  it  is  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  when  it  is  raised  to  its  highest  state  in  the 
glorified  personalities  of  rational  beings,  and  when 
clothed  in  material  like  that  in  Christ's  ascension  body, 
no  pent-up  Utica  can  contract  its  powers.  The  saints 
will  therefore  be  unconditioned  in  their  ample  range  and 
in  their  facilities  of  movement,  except  as  they  are  con- 
ditioned by  themselves  and  by  the  wise  and  infinite 
Father  above  them.  What  more  can  they  desire?  Ven- 
turesome recklessness  belongs  to  that  other  class  of 
beings  who,  inconsequence  thereof,  were  hurled  headlong 
through  the  ethereal  skies  to  darkness  and  perdition. 
Sound  will  not  travel  through  a  vacuum,  neither  is  it 
presumable  that  saints  will  want  to  ramble  around 
through  space  to  see  how  far  they  dare  venture  away 
from  that  more  central 

"  Place  where  spirits  blend 

And  friend  holds  fellowship  with  friend." 
Man  as  a  social  being  must  have  society.  This  law  of  his 
nature  will  run  parallel  with  his  being.  Social  mag- 
netism will  ever  draw  the  saints  together  and  keep  them 
clustered  around  the  Lamb,  the  great  Magnet  of  re- 
deemed humanity.  He  will  be  the  center  of  all  centers 
and  the  circumference  of  the  entire  glorified  periphery. 


OUR  FUTURE  STATE  AND  PLACE.  349 

Within  this  periphery  there  will  be  many  little  social  cen- 
ters and  gathered  groups  without  the  exclusiveness  of  caste. 
Little  coteries  of  old  friends  will  doubtless  "  gather  at  the 
river  thatflows  by  the  throne  of  God."  The  sealed  fount- 
ains of  past  endearments  will  be  opened  afresh, and  the  pure 
waters  of  delight  leap  forth  amidst  many  a  domestic  cir- 
cle once  broken  by  the  cruel  thunderbolt  of  death,  but 
again  reunited  forever.  Will  not  their  hearts  burn 
within  them  as  Jesus  makes  himself  known  to  such  dis- 
ciples in  breaking  unto  them  the  bread  of  heaven  as 
never  served  on  earth.  We  will  love  our  friends  in 
heaven  for  Jesus'  sake  and  love  Jesus  more  for  their  sake. 
Our  hearts  will  not  grow  weary,  but  oh,  how  they  will 
yearn  for  the  old  folks  and  for  the  young  folks  at  home. 
It  would  be  blasphemy  even  to  intimate  that  he  who 
came  in  love  to  fulfill  the  law  would  himself  destroy  the 
law  of  love.  The  saints  will  forever  continue  to  be 
filled  with  the  sacred  memories  of  the  past,  the  solid 
joys  of  the  present  and  sweet  anticipations  of  the  future. 

Q.  23.  Then  heaven  will  have  both  duration  and 
locality? 

A.  Why  not?  Man  was  brought  into  existence  to  be 
a  denizen  of  time  and  space,  and  he  will  continue  under 
that  twofold  category  until  his  being  is  radically  changed 
to  something  else.  The  supposition  of  such  a  change 
would  involve  a  superlative  absurdity.  It  is  nonsense  to 
say  that  duration  will  not  extend  to  eternity,  and  that 
the  lines  of  time's  longitude  will  not  continue  into  the 
map — the  ever-unfinished  map  of  heaven.  Time  may 
lose  its  metric  character,  and  be  no  longer  divisible  into 
sections  by  rolling  suns;  and  space  may  continue  to  defy 
all  finite  attempts  to  comprehend  its  boundaries  and 
boundlessness;  yet  if  there  is  time  for  "a  half  hour  of 
silence  in  heaven/'  there  will  be  time  enough  for  an  end- 
less day  of  hallelujahs  loud  and  long,  and  space  enough 
for  the  New  Jerusalem  with  all  its  measured  furlongs. 


350  THE  SUBSTANTIAL    PHILOSOPHY. 

How  can  it  be  otherwise,  indeed?  God's  heaven  may  not 
be  localized,  but  the  heaven  of  man  must  have  a  place 
and  be  a  place.  As  already  seen,  there  will  be  refined 
material  in  heaven.  All  material,  however  attenuated, 
must  have  extension.  Such  material  extension  must 
have  limitation.  However  boundless  space  may  be,  the 
creatures  of  space,  being  finite,  must  have  boundaries. 
Man  is  a  substantial  being,  both  as  to  his  spirit  and  his 
body.  He  must,  therefore,  have  place  as  to  his  finite 
spirit  and  room  as  to  his  material  body.  Neither  Science 
nor  Eevelation  have  given  us  any  evidence  that  attenu- 
ated, refined  or  glorified  matter  shall  do  away  with  its 
constitutional  and  qualified  impenetrability.  To  the 
same  extent  which  glorified  persons  incorporate  material 
will  they  require  that  their  substantial  heaven  include 
material  environments.  If  the  bodies  of  the  saints  are 
tangible,  the  substantive  elements  of  their  abode  must, 
in  the  same  sense,  be  equally  so.  All  the  furniture  in 
our  Father's  house  will  be  tangible  to  the  tactile  touch 
of  our  celestial  fingers,  .and  all  the  golden  goblets  of  his 
banquet  chamber  tangible  to  the  lips  no  longer  parched 
with  feverish  thirst.  Substantialism,  while  it  discounts 
the  gross  materialism  of  this  world,  is  not  disposed  to 
run  into  dreamy  idealism  concerning  the  next.  God 
never  designed  that  man,  after  having  a  substantial  ex- 
istence here,  should  be  a  phantom  to  float  upon  the 
shoreless  bosom  of  some  ethereal  sea,  or  a  shadow  to  flit 
away  beneath  the  vault  of  some  ethereal  sky. 

Q.  24.  What  are  the  environments  or  surroundings  of 
the  saints  in  the  heavenly  place? 

A.  Our  eyes  have  not  yet  seen,  our  ears  have  not  yet 
heard,  neither  have  our  hearts  yet  been  able  to  experience 
the  things  which  a  kind  Father  hath  laid  up  for  those 
who  by  becoming  children  of  Christ  have  also  by  the 
same  birth  became  joint-heirs  with  the  elder  brother  to 
that  "inheritance  incorruptible  and  undefiled,  and  that 


OUR  FUTURE  STATE  AND  PLACE.  351 

fadeth  not  away,  reserved  in  heaven  for  them."  It  is 
reasonable,  however,  to  suppose  that  the  environments 
will  be  such  in  their  substantial  character  as  to  surpass 
our  most  extravagant  dreams  of  their  reality.  The 
reasonableness  of  this  supposition  is  supported  by  science 
and  justified  by  Revelation.  What  meaning  can  there  be 
in  the  last  few  chapters  of  the  Bible  if  heaven  be  less  sub- 
stantial and  less  real  than  earth?  Surely  the  New  Jeru- 
salem with  its  dozen  gates  ajar,  the  crystal  river  with  its 
living,  limpid  stream,  and  Mount  Zion,  on  whose  celestial 
summit  stands  the  Lamb  surrounded  with  the  happy 
hosts  of  the  redeemed — surely  these  are  not  false  images 
of  nothing  real  before  which  a  kind  father  would  have 
his  confiding  children  bow  down  and  worship  in  the  blind 
adoration  of  illusory  hopes.  Why  should  there  not  be 
pearly  gates  and  golden  streets  through  which  to  enter 
and  upon  which  to  walk  when  the  ransomed  of  the  Lord 
shall  return  and  come  to  Zion  with  songs  of  everlasting 
joy  upon  their  heads?  Why  should  there  not  be  palms 
of  victory  borne,  and  crowns  of  glory  worn  by  the 
exultant  army  of  the  skies  as  they  parade  before  the  en- 
throned majesty  of  the  Commander-in-Chief,  and  cause 
heaven's  high  arches  to  ring  with  hallelujahs  to  his  ever- 
lasting praise? 

Q.  25.  What  then  is  our  duty  to  God  and  to  our- 
selves? 

A.  It  is  our  chief  duty  as  well  as  our  high  privilege 
to  study  God's  Word  and  works  in  the  light  which  they 
shed  upon  each  other  and  which  they  comminglingly  shed 
upon  the  great  central  problems  of  human  life,  here  and 
hereafter.  This  can  now  be  done  to  greater  advantage 
than  ever  before  since  the  investigation  may  be  made 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  Substantial  Philosophy 
founded  by  A.  Wilford  Hall,  and  partially  formulated  by 
the  author  of  this  book.  Blessed  are  they  that  heed  the 
suggestions  of  this  volume,  for  the  time  is  at  hand  for 


352  THE  SUBSTANTIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

men  to  see  the  invisible  things  of  God  in  every  domain 
of  finite  being.  Guided  by  the  foregoing  helps  and 
hints,  the  devout  student  of  Nature  and  Revelation  may 
quicken  his  steps  in  the  direction  of  a  more  perfect 
knowledge  of  him  whom  to  know  aright  is  life  eternal, 
and  whom  to  love  supremely  is  the  highest  duty  of  man. 
Thus  walking  in  the  path  of  duty,  and  thus  possessed  of 
this  eternal  life,  even  now, 

"Before  we  reach  the  heavenly  fields, 
Or  walk  the  golden  streets/' 

we  shall  be  able  to  partially  overcome  all  false  forces  at 
war  with  the  proper  dignity  and  well-being  of  our  nature, 
pass  through  our  transition  period  in  triumph  to  the 
skies,  enter  upon  the  higher  realm  of  human  existence, 
join  the  gathering,  swelling  throng  of  former  friends  to 
range,  in  mutual  happiness,  the  flowery  fields  of  heaven, 
and  pluck  ripe  clusters  from  the  vines  of  God. 

[THE  END.] 


PUBLICATION  OF  HALL  &  CO 

23  Park  Row,  New  York. 


Among  these  books  are  the  "PROBLEM  OF  HUMAN    LIFE,'*  "UNI- 
VEBSALISM    AGAINST   ITSELF,"  and  the  bound  volumes  of 
"  THE  MICROCOSM,'*  all  by  A.  WILFORD  HALL, 
Ph.  D.,  LL.  D.,  editor  of  THE  SCIEN- 
TIFIC   ARENA. 


LIST  OF  OUR  BOOKS  WITH  PRICES. 

1.  "Problem  of  Human  Life,"  524  large  double-column  octavo 
pages,  richly   bound   in    cloth  and  gold-lettered.     It  contains  the 
portraits  of  the  six  renowned  scientists  re  vie  wed  by  the  author,  name- 
ly, Darwin,  Tyndall,  Huxley,  Haeckel,  Helmholtz,  and  Mayer,  and  is 
pronounced  the  most  extraordinary  scientifico-religious  book  of  the 
century.     Price  $2. 

2.  "  TIniversalism  Against   Itself,"  336  octavo  pages,   by  the 
author  of  the  "  Problem  of  Human  Life."   It  contains  a  steel  portrait 
of  the  author,  is  beautifully  bound  in  cloth,  gold  and  black,  and  is 
considered  the  most  original  and  remarkable  exegesis  of  Scripture 
texts  ever  produced.     Price  $1. 

3.  The  first  four  Volumes  of  The  Microcosm,  bound  substan- 
tially in  cloth,  gold  and  black,   containing  nearly  400  large  royal 
octavo  pages  each.     The  first  volume  of  this  set  contains  also  the 
steel  portrait  of  the  editor.  A.  Wilford   Hall,  Ph.  D.,  LL.  D.     These 
four  volumes  contain  the  rise,  progress,  and  development  of  the  Sub- 
stantial Philosophy  founded  by  their  editor,  and  which,  it  is  believed, 
is  destined  at  no  distant  day  to  revolutionize  the  scientific  world. 
Price  $1.50  per  volume,  or  $6  for  tho  set.     No  progressive,  thinking 
man,  who  cares  to  keep  abreast  of  the  times,  should  neglect  to  secure 
these  volumes. 

4.  "The  Walks  and  Words  of  Jesus,"  cloth,  by  the  late  Rev. 
M.  N.  Olmsted,  an  invaluable  Harmony  of  the  Four  Gospels,  just  the 
book  for  the  Sunday  School  and  for  every  religious  family.  Price  $1. 

5.  "Retribution,"  cloth,  a  most  instructive  religious  book,  by 
the  late  eminent  scholar,  W.  L.  Barnes,  Esq.,  printed  and  bound  in 
the  best  style  of  the  art,  with  an  elegant  symbolical  steel  engraving 
as  a  frontispiece.     Price  $1. 

6.  Our  condensed  pocket  Webster  Dictionary,  cloth,  384  pages, 
containing  more  than  25,000  of  the  principal  words  of  the  English 
language,  and   several    hundred   unusual   words  not  yet    found  in 
Webster  Unabridged.     No  person  who  has  once  used  this  dictionary 
will  ever  be  without  it.     Price  40  cents. 

The  above  list  comprises  the  books  from  which  selection  is  to  be 
made  in  order  to  secure  a  set  of  Appleton's  Encyclopedia  as  a  pre- 
mium. A  single  copy  of  either  of  these  works  as  a  sample  will  be 
sent  by  mail  or  express  prepaid  at  the  price  named.  Address 

HALL  &  CO.,  Publishers, 

23    Park    Row,    New   York. 


The  Scientific  Arena, 

A  Monthly  Religio-Scientific  Periodical. 

A.  WILFOKD  HALL,  Ph.  D.,  UL.  D.,  Editor. 

The    Organ    of    the  Substantial    Philosophy. 

THE  MOST  ORIGINAL  AID  VALUABLE  JOURNAL  OF  ITS  KIND  IN  THE  WORLD. 

No  thinking  man  who  desires  to  keep  abreast  of  the  latest  and 
best  thought  of  the  age  can  afford  to  be  without  it. 

From  among  the  kind  words  of  the  past  month  (June)  we  take 
these  few: 

The  first  number  of  the  AKENA  comes  to  our  dwelling  full  and  sparkling:  with  the 
wine  of  truth.  PROF.  I.  N.  VAIL, 

Barnesville,  O. 

After  a  careful  reading,  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  it  is  a  first-class  literary  journal; 
indeed,  I  think  it  is  the  religio-scientific  periodical  of  the  age. 

J.  W.  TROTMAN, 

Hertford,  N.  C. 

Long  may  it  live  and  prove  to  be  an  "arena"  upon  which  th^  battles  of  the  Lord 
are  fought  in  a  truly  scientific  spirit.  J.  L.  SCHATZ, 

St.  Mary's,  O. 

Yesterday  I  received  a  copy  of  the  SCIENTIFIC  ARENA,  and  I  have  fed  from  its 
bounties  until  every  page  has  been  read,  but  I  am  hungry  for  more. 

W.  A.  HENNEGAR, 

Fraucesville,  Ind. 

The  paper  is  certainly  a  valuable  acquisition  to  the  scientific  world  *  *  * 
I  get  much  that  is  richest  food  to  my  mind.  O.  P.  HOOVER, 

Dayton,  O. 

I  will  try  to  extend  the  circulation  of  your  most  valuable  paper  among  others  not 
ret  acquainted  with  the  Substantial  Philosophy.  H.  GALLEY, 

Daw  son,  Pa. 

Each  preacher,  teacher,  and  student  should  take  it.  It  does  me  better  than  a  $4 
monthly.  REV.  WILLIAM  FOTSCH, 

Nauvoo,  111. 

Have  read  with  great  delight  the  first  number.  I  regard  it  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant and  useful  additions  to  our  literature. 

REV.  G.  DUEBENDORF, 

Mound  Prairie,  Minn. 

As  the  wise  men  of  the  East  hailed  the  appearance  of  the  Star  of  Bethlehem,  so 
do  I  receive  the  SCIENTIFIC  ARENA,  and  believe  that  the  philosophical  arguments  in 
favor  of  the  Christian  religion  which  appear  on  its  pages  \\ill  *  *  over- 
throw the  infidel  strongholds.  J.  L.  BRIGHT.  M.  D., 

New  Castle,  Ky. 

There  is  more  good  reading  matter  in  one  number  than  some  other  scientific 
journals  that  cost  five  times  as  much  have  in  a  whole  year. 

JACOB  BAKER, 

Swanton,  O. 
I  consider  it  worthy  a  place  in  every  family. 

A.  V.  ABERCROMBIE, 

Bridgeport,  Ct. 

Every  reading  man  who  sees  a  copy  will  subscribe  for  it.  Only 
fifty  cents  per  year. 

Liberal  cash  terms  to  agents. 

Send  for  specimen  copy  and  club  rates. 


P.  O.  Box  1300.  st***^*  23  Pa**  Row,  New  York. 


2475 


S 


